New poll: 21% of atheists believe in God

Essentially your only argument in defense of your ignorance is an argument from ridicule. Yes, Damo, YOU are too ignorant too know what agnostic atheism is, but I clearly am not.
 
Watermark said:
Essentially your only argument in defense of your ignorance is an argument from ridicule. Yes, Damo, YOU are too ignorant too know what agnostic atheism is, but I clearly am not.
Click to expand...
LOL. This actually is a great example of an argument from ridicule...

My argument wasn't ridicule, but this ridicule in this thread is, it is what I've been doing in this thread... because it is fun.

I'm ridiculing the idea that you "won" the argument in the other thread, and mocking the crap out of your funny defense.

We all understand "agnostic atheism"... It is exactly what I said rational people would think, except I called it atheistic agnosticism. Again, you failed to pull it out because you knew it meant you were saying, "Damocles, you are right and Grind and I are owned."
 
Watermark said:
Any claim that your belief is "beyond human/your/anyones understanding" is a special pleading. I can defend any claim on such grounds, as Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in my Garage" illustrates. That's why its a fallacy.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was "beyond" anyone's understanding, I said you were incapable of it. The concept of God is not beyond understanding, which is why 95% of us do understand it and believe in something.

To pray seriously to God you need to believe in him. But the purpose of the experiment is supposed to be to show that he exists so that I can believe in him. The experiment presupposes the conclusion.
Click to expand...

Again, if I refuse to drop something, does it mean gravity doesn't exist? Do I need to believe that gravity exists to prove it by dropping something? Certainly, if I am conducting an experiment to prove gravity exists, I must at least have some basic idea that gravity might exist, otherwise, why would I be conducting the experiment?

This has nothing to do with the subject. Your just curtailing off into some tangeant about the philosophy of knowledge and science. I don't care to discuss it with you. Any experiment which requires you to accept that the results will be positive in order for it to work is automatically invalid.
Click to expand...

Huh? Nothing is required of you. I compared existence of God to existence of gravity. You protested that gravity can be proven through observation of an experiment, and asked how you would conduct a similar experiment to prove God, and I told you. But your response is, you don't want to do the experiment, you don't believe in God, so it is 'circular logic' for you to do the experiment. I could make the same case for gravity. If I just didn't want to accept that gravity existed, I could argue that I simply believed it to be a fairy tale, and what could you do to convince me? If I believe invisible fairies pull things to the Earth, and there is no such thing as gravity, it is just as pointless for me to do an experiment to "prove" gravity exists... I don't believe it, and won't believe it. I will reject whatever finding an experiment might produce, because my mind is already made up.

No, it is not. Dropping the ball and letting it hit the floor doesn't require me to accept beforehand that dropping the ball will make it hit the floor.
Click to expand...

It does require you to accept that some force other than magical fairies is responsible! As long as that is what you think, it doesn't matter what kind of experiment you do!
 
Damocles said:
LOL. This actually is a great example of an argument from ridicule...

My argument wasn't ridicule, but this ridicule in this thread is, it is what I've been doing in this thread... because it is fun.

I'm ridiculing the idea that you "won" the argument in the other thread, and mocking the crap out of your funny defense.

We all understand "agnostic atheism"... It is exactly what I said rational people would think, except I called it atheistic agnosticism. Again, you failed to pull it out because you knew it meant you were saying, "Damocles, you are right and Grind and I are owned."
Click to expand...

I think this is the third time I have had to say this today.

I AM AN ATHEIST.

ATHEIST.

ATHEIST
 
Damocles said:
We all understand "agnostic atheism"... It is exactly what I said rational people would think, except I called it atheistic agnosticism. Again, you failed to pull it out because you knew it meant you were saying, "Damocles, you are right and Grind and I are owned."
Click to expand...

no you don't, you and your ilk didn't even know the term existed.

In most common discussions, RATIONAL PEOPLE don't ask others to prove something non-falsifiable. They don't get smug when someone can't disprove of invisible FAIRIES.

But when it comes to religion, it's not good enough to say we dont believe in god. We have to give the razor sharp technical definition of what we are so you fucking idiots will shut up. We don't do this with santa claus, or the tooth fairy, but we have to do it with god. We have to call ourselves "agnostic atheists"

I live my life as an atheist. If someone came up to me on the street and asked if I was an atheist, I would say yes. I would check off atheist on a census form.

WATERMARK AND I NEVER CLAIMED WE COULD DISPROVE OF GOD TO A 100% CERTAINTY.

But the question is so completely ludicrous on its face that it shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

And you keep clinging to the "agnostic" part of "agnostic atheist" while still failing to realize that AGNOSTIC ATHEISM IS STILL ATHEISM

 
Last edited:
Grind said:
no you don't, you and your ilk didn't even know the term existed.

In most common discussions, RATIONAL PEOPLE don't ask others to prove something non-falsifiable. They don't get smug when someone can't disprove of invisible FAIRIES.

But when it comes to religion, it's not good enough to say we dont believe in god. We have to give the razor sharp technical definition of what we are so you fucking idiots will shut up. We don't do this with santa claus, or the tooth fairy, but we have to do it with god. We have to call ourselves "agnostic atheists"

I live my life as an atheist. If someone came up to me on the street and asked if I was an atheist, I would say yes. I would check off atheist on a census form.

WATERMARK AND I NEVER CLAIMED WE COULD DISPROVE OF GOD TO A 100% CERTAINTY.

But the question is so completely ludicrous on its face that it shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

And you keep clinging to the "agnostic" part of "agnostic atheist" while still failing to realize that AGNOSTIC ATHEISM IS STILL ATHEISM
Click to expand...
Right, and Conservative Democrats like Zell Miller are still Liberal, because it is all the same thing.

You can cry all you want, but you know I am right. If it was the same thing there wouldn't be a different phrase for it. The phrase is almost totally oxymoronic, like the Christian Atheists.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't say it was "beyond" anyone's understanding, I said you were incapable of it. The concept of God is not beyond understanding, which is why 95% of us do understand it and believe in something.



Again, if I refuse to drop something, does it mean gravity doesn't exist? Do I need to believe that gravity exists to prove it by dropping something? Certainly, if I am conducting an experiment to prove gravity exists, I must at least have some basic idea that gravity might exist, otherwise, why would I be conducting the experiment?



Huh? Nothing is required of you. I compared existence of God to existence of gravity. You protested that gravity can be proven through observation of an experiment, and asked how you would conduct a similar experiment to prove God, and I told you. But your response is, you don't want to do the experiment, you don't believe in God, so it is 'circular logic' for you to do the experiment. I could make the same case for gravity. If I just didn't want to accept that gravity existed, I could argue that I simply believed it to be a fairy tale, and what could you do to convince me? If I believe invisible fairies pull things to the Earth, and there is no such thing as gravity, it is just as pointless for me to do an experiment to "prove" gravity exists... I don't believe it, and won't believe it. I will reject whatever finding an experiment might produce, because my mind is already made up.



It does require you to accept that some force other than magical fairies is responsible! As long as that is what you think, it doesn't matter what kind of experiment you do!
Click to expand...

Dixie, you aren't responding to my points. I'll take this as a concession of your defeat.
 
Damocles said:
The phrase is almost totally oxymoronic, like the Christian Atheists.
Click to expand...

no it is not. And it is here where you illustrate your utter stupidity and ignorance. Being an agnostic and an atheist are not mutually exclusive. Being a christian (i.e. beleving jesus is the son of god) and being an atheist (not believing in a god) ARE mutually exclusive.
 
Watermark said:
Dixie, you aren't responding to my points. I'll take this as a concession of your defeat.
Click to expand...

You didn't make any points Waterhead! You only proved my point. If someone is unwilling to believe in spite of the evidence, nothing matters with regard to the evidence. This is true whether we are talking about existence of God or existence of gravity. Once you've made up your mind on what you believe, and refuse to change it, no measure of experimentation or testing matters, you are not going to accept them because it would be contrary to your opinion to do so. You said this yourself, and that settled the debate on this.
 
Grind said:
no it is not. And it is here where you illustrate your utter stupidity and ignorance. Being an agnostic and an atheist are not mutually exclusive. Being a christian (i.e. beleving jesus is the son of god) and being an atheist (not believing in a god) ARE mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...
You must not know the meaning of "almost"...
 
Dixie said:
You didn't make any points Waterhead! You only proved my point. If someone is unwilling to believe in spite of the evidence, nothing matters with regard to the evidence. This is true whether we are talking about existence of God or existence of gravity. Once you've made up your mind on what you believe, and refuse to change it, no measure of experimentation or testing matters, you are not going to accept them because it would be contrary to your opinion to do so. You said this yourself, and that settled the debate on this.
Click to expand...

Strawman.

I find dropping a ball acceptable proof for gravity. I do not find believing in God to be acceptable proof for believing in God.
 
Watermark said:
Strawman.

I find dropping a ball acceptable proof for gravity. I do not find believing in God to be acceptable proof for believing in God.
Click to expand...

Dropping a ball only proves gravity if you believe in the existence of gravity. If you refuse to accept gravity exists, it doesn't matter how many balls you drop.
 
Dixie said:
Dropping a ball only proves gravity if you believe in the existence of gravity. If you refuse to accept gravity exists, it doesn't matter how many balls you drop.
Click to expand...

If you believed in the existence of gravity, why do the experiment? The experiment establishes the reason for the belief.

This whole 'refuses to accept anything exists!" thing is a strawman, because I've said nothing of the sort, and it's not worth responding to.
 
Dixie said:
This is true, however... does it prevent them from SAYING they are Atheist?

Is it possible for a so-called Atheist to lie??? Are they ALL 100% honest about what they believe? Can we assume if they identify with the label of Atheist, they can't possibly have any belief in a God?

As I said... and will say again... Atheists are sometimes the biggest believers in God of all! They CLAIM they don't believe in God, but that is a LIE! Do you not comprehend what I am saying here? Do you really think ALL Atheists are honest? Granted, a good many of them DON'T believe in God, and are really Atheists... about 79% of them, apparently!
Click to expand...
NO ONE that believes in god is an atheist by definition. If they LIED and said they were atheists they would be lying believers in god, which is of course a violation of many religious organizations beliefs. A lying believer can never be an atheist. Calling a pig a puppy does not make it so.
 
Dixie said:
Same subject, same time-frame, same debate with pinheads.

Explained!
Click to expand...
so you have lied more than once to different people about being christian? What else do you lie about? Do you secretly believe that something can be divided into equal thirds?
 
Watermark said:
If you believed in the existence of gravity, why do the experiment? The experiment establishes the reason for the belief.

This whole 'refuses to accept anything exists!" thing is a strawman, because I've said nothing of the sort, and it's not worth responding to.
Click to expand...

Well, you would do the experiment to PROVE what you believe! What the fuck is the matter with your retarded ass? What kind of stupid question was that?

IF you refuse to accept the possibility God exists, it doesn't matter what kind of experiment you do! IF I refuse to accept the possibility gravity exists, it doesn't matter what kind of experiment I do! It's the same thing both ways! You can't "prove" something to me, if I am not willing to accept the possibility of what you are trying to prove! I can't "prove" something to you, if you're not willing to accept the possibility of what I am trying to prove! In order for experiments and evidence to have any validity, you have to open your mind to the possibility, and if you aren't willing to do that, if your mind is made up, all the evidence and experiments in the world do not matter!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top