INGO Argument Match ...Alpha: In The Big Inning

[ATM]

*regarding atheism vs agnosticism*

It really depends. In practice the line is quite blurry.

I'll attempt to clarify that line for you a bit.

I have never described myself as agnostic. It feels insincere.

Describing yourself as 'without knowledge' on a matter feels insincere? You'd rather adopt an indefensible position than feel insincere? ? Do you realize yet that I couldn't so easily do most of this to an agnostic position? I'd have to put some effort into that and would likely plot a very different approach. Your desire to feel sincere has led you astray.

Agnostic either means one is "unsure", or it means that the answer is "unknowable". Neither is true for me.

Neither is true for you? You claim to know, and to be sure? Of a negative? You're absolutely certain? I can't wait until we finally get around to comparing evidences.

I am not conflicted.

How did you convince yourself that a conflict does not exist within you? How might you go about convincing others of this claim? Am I bringing to light possible conflicts that you simply weren't aware of before? Conflicts that you had 'no knowledge' of? Are you an aconflictedist?

I do not spend time and effort weighing the options between a world without gods compared to a world where gods exist, but in such a way where their actions are indistinguishable from their absence.

Neither do I, but perhaps you should have spent a bit more time thinking and weighing before you chose to somewhat arbitrarily champion one of those two positions exclusively over not just the other, but over all other possibilities.

I also think if gods existed their interactions and requirements would remain consistent over time and over distance.

Are you sure 'think' is the correct term here? What was your thought process in reaching these conclusions? They seem, again, more like fairly arbitrary assumptions or SWAGs. What is your basis for these assumptions, where did you come by this special inherent knowledge of what gods would act like if they existed?

If gods existed it would be obvious, as people from all over the world would come to the same religious conclusions regardless of their contact with outside ideas.

See above and please explain your thought processes here. Stating your beliefs as facts just isn't going to suffice. If that's how you were initially swayed to this belief system by someone else, believing their notions to be facts, you'll have to do better than they did to keep them standing upright. I am not so easily swayed.

If gods really existed a person that lived their entire life in isolation would have just as deep an understanding of God as the most educated scholar...since they both received their message directly from the source...the same source.

Is every notion of yours just somehow a fact? Are these notions even your own? How much scrutiny have you given any of them? Do you truly believe that these are “default” positions? You've crafted the idea that direct divine revelation is the exclusive means by which a god would make their existence known to all? What if there are countless other means you haven't even considered?

Do you really think the person who devotes their life to knowing everything they could know about something couldn't possibly attain a more informed understanding than an uninterested person who didn't bother to even consider the possibilities? Would that make sense for any other debate topic or does it hang only on your assumption in this case?

So, I think if gods existed it would be knowable...and that's one of the key reasons I do not believe in anyone else's gods.

You keep using that word “think” where 'imagine' seems more suitable. If you really thought your way to these notions, please guide us through the process. I don't think we can move past this, to everything else that's available to me, until you convince yourself that all this is worthy of even attempting to mount a defense.

Have you ever even tried? Defending a position of atheism?

I know I have. I found it to be an exhausting and humiliating exercise, to tell you the truth.

Don't let that stop you. My humiliation cannot be a “selling” point for you, only your own.

Good luck, friend.


ETA: Originally misread "insincere" as "insecure", a rather significant distinction. Changed that portion of my response.

 

[PaulF]

*regarding atheism vs agnosticism*



I'll attempt to clarify that line for you a bit.



Describing yourself as 'without knowledge' on a matter feels insecure? You'd rather adopt an indefensible position than feel insecure? How secure do you feel right now? Do you realize yet that I couldn't so easily do most of this to an agnostic position? I'd have to put some effort into that and would likely plot a very different approach.

Insincere.

You don't even read the words I write. Insincere, not insecure.

Describing myself as "Agnostic" would be insincere from my perspective...for the reasons I listed.

Neither is true for you? You claim to know, and to be sure? Of a negative? You're absolutely certain? I can't wait until we finally get around to comparing evidences.

What evidence? you talk to yourself and think its god...that's ego, nothing more.

How did you convince yourself that a conflict does not exist within you? How might you go about convincing others of this claim? Am I bringing to light possible conflicts that you simply weren't aware of before? Conflicts that you had 'no knowledge' of? Are you an aconflictedist?

Convince myself? I read the bible...its contents are nothing short of ridiculous.

Neither do I, but perhaps you should have spent a bit more time thinking and weighing before you chose to somewhat arbitrarily champion one of those two positions exclusively over not just the other, but over all other possibilities.

There are only two possibilities: gods exist or they do not. History is full of man-made gods...like yours.

Are you sure 'think' is the correct term here? What was your thought process in reaching these conclusions? They seem, again, more like fairly arbitrary assumptions or SWAGs. What is your basis for these assumptions, where did you come by this special inherent knowledge of what gods would act like if they existed?

Every agrees that the sky is blue. This what happens when everyone shares an experience. If everyone were really in contact with (the one and only (TM)) god it stands to reason that they would come to many of the same conclusions about god. Instead we get some people that meditate to reach their gods, and others that cut other people's hearts out to achieve the same goal.

See above and please explain your thought processes here. Stating your beliefs as facts just isn't going to suffice. If that's how you were initially swayed to this belief system by someone else, believing their notions to be facts, you'll have to do better than they did to keep them standing upright. I am not so easily swayed.



Is every notion of yours just somehow a fact? Are these notions even your own? How much scrutiny have you given any of them? Do you truly believe that these are “default” positions? You've crafted the idea that direct divine revelation is the exclusive means by which a god would make their existence known to all? What if there are countless other means you haven't even considered?

Do you really think the person who devotes their life to knowing everything they could know about something couldn't possibly attain a more informed understanding than an uninterested person who didn't bother to even consider the possibilities? Would that make sense for any other debate topic or does it hang only on your assumption in this case?

If you study the sky for your entire life, is it any less blue? When something exists it can be studied. Conclusions can be reached. Those conclusions can be compared, and irregularities can be addressed.

Try to apply the same process to something that doesn't exist..and the results you get look an awful lot like religion...thousands of different "truths" appear with no way to verify their authenticity.

It is not possible for all the gods that man has created to exist...but it is possible that none of them do.

You keep using that word “think” where 'imagine' seems more suitable. If you really thought your way to these notions, please guide us through the process. I don't think we can move past this, to everything else that's available to me, until you convince yourself that all this is worthy of even attempting to mount a defense.

Have you ever even tried? Defending a position of atheism?

I know I have. I found it to be an exhausting and humiliating exercise, to tell you the truth.

Don't let that stop you. My humiliation cannot be a “selling” point for you, only your own.

Good luck, friend.

Pointing to empty heavens means nothing to people that think their god is invisible. Pointing out unanswered prayers and unreturned "messiahs" means nothing to people that believe their gods "work in mysterious ways".

I'm not trying to "defend atheism". I don't need to. My position is a default one: I don't believe in anyone's gods, because I don't find anyone's gods believable.

You want me to believe in gods? Show me some tangible evidence that your god isn't just a figment of your imagination...but you can't.

You simply can't.

 

[TB1999]

Why can't people just get drunk and settle differences by duking it out like in the good old days?

 

[ATM]

Insincere.

You don't even read the words I write. Insincere, not insecure.

Describing myself as "Agnostic" would be insincere from my perspective...for the reasons I listed...

Yes, I caught that myself and still managed to adjust my response accordingly an hour before you posted this.
I noted what happened at the bottom of the post. Sorry for making you think I'm not interested in your words, I really am, enough to read them again and again trying to figure out just how many things they could possibly mean, what the whole sum of them might mean. I'm getting to know the author most of all.

Will the author like me when this is finished? Will any of INGO? Who cares?

The rest of what you wrote is soft soap, skipping past the true weight of this matter to respond only where you feel it not detrimental to do so. This is to be expected, there is no beginning to your position but mine.

For example, here's your next line of response to me:

What evidence? you talk to yourself and think its god...that's ego, nothing more.

But, here's what was put to you:

Neither is true for you? You claim to know, and to be sure? Of a negative? You're absolutely certain? I can't wait until we finally get around to comparing evidences.

I fully understand that you'd like to skip right ahead to some future phase of this argument, any other potential avenue of discussion that doesn't stop you dead in your tracks right here.

But I won't allow that.

Don't leave me hanging, we all need you to go back now and address the staggering weight of what I asked you. You know, what I actually wrote.

Do you even read the words I write?

Batter up.

 

[PaulF]

Alan, I'm honestly unsure what you want me to address for you.

As I understand it, your thesis for this thread is that my beliefs are indefensible.

My argument is that my position is all that is left once one has dismissed all other available gods.

I have stated clearly that I find your religious text dubious to the point of being ridiculous.

I have clearly stated that I don't find your god believable.

That leaves me in my current state: godless unless and until I see adequate tangible evidence otherwise...

...a perfectly defensible position.

 

[ATM]

Alan, I'm honestly unsure what you want me to address for you.

This, only this for now:

...I have never described myself as agnostic. It feels insincere. Agnostic either means one is "unsure", or it means that the answer is "unknowable". Neither is true for me...

...Neither is true for you? You claim to know, and to be sure? Of a negative? You're absolutely certain?...

You must find a way past that before we can further this argument or start a new one.

As I understand it, your thesis for this thread is that my beliefs are indefensible.

Although I refuse to be limited by the confines of your understanding, this is correct.

Defend your claim or lose. Open your mind or lose.

Once you genuinely realize that you lost, we can discuss winning.

My argument is that my position is all that is left once one has dismissed all other available gods.

Dismissing is all the potter has allowed, the pot could never truly deny the potter. This is the test of your faith.

I have stated clearly that I find your religious text dubious to the point of being ridiculous.

Which is why I haven't even quoted a religious text in OUR argument.

I have clearly stated that I don't find your god believable.

Just as I have clearly stated that I do not respect your beliefs, but value you.

That leaves me in my current state: godless unless and until I see adequate tangible evidence otherwise...

When you're done talking

...when you're done listening

...I will show you

...a perfectly defensible position.

Stop finishing my sentences like that, Paul, you're starting to freak me out a bit.

 

[steve0322]

Beer is proof that God loves us?

If beer is proof that God loves us, why does beer make me violently ill as soon as I drink it? I think big man has it out for me.

 

[patience0830]

If beer is proof that God loves us, why does beer make me violently ill as soon as I drink it? I think big man has it out for me.

God, (or genetics) May have done you a huge favor. Beer is OK.

Some beer is better than others.

Living a long and happy life without beer is very possible.

ATM is a contentious rascal, tho he may truly have Paul's best interest at heart, the old saw about leading a horse to water is what this thread brings to my mind.

 

[printcraft]

If beer is proof that God loves us, why does beer make me violently ill as soon as I drink it? I think big man has it out for me.

You could be inherently evil then. I can neither confirm nor deny this but I believe it.

 

[steve0322]

You could be inherently evil then. I can neither confirm nor deny this but I believe it.

I never noticed the holy water sizzle when it hit me, so I can't be too bad.

 

[printcraft]

I never noticed the holy water sizzle when it hit me, so I can't be too bad.

Might have evaporated mid air before it got to you........

 

[KG1]

Do you guys not realize there is a serious debate going on in here? (That beer debate is intense.)

 

[chezuki]

I wish there were a non-alcoholic IPA that tasted like Dragonfly.

 

[bacon#1]

I wish there were a non-alcoholic IPA that tasted like Dragonfly.

Oh there is. Let me finish bathing my last kid and I'll bottle some up for you. I used extra Mr. Bubble this time too.

 

[Fargo]

The idea that faith is some sort of intellectually forcible construct destroys the very definition of faith. If faith is nothing more than thinking hard enough, there is no merit or grace in it.

There is a world of difference between intellectually defending your faith and thinking that you can somehow force another to acquiesce to it. By definition, there's only one person who can give Faith and I don't believe he is posting in this thread.

 

[PaulF]

This, only this for now:

Neither is true for you? You claim to know, and to be sure? Of a negative? You're absolutely certain? I can't wait until we finally get around to comparing evidences.

I have never described myself as agnostic. It feels insincere. Agnostic either means one is "unsure", or it means that the answer is "unknowable". Neither is true for me.

You must find a way past that before we can further this argument or start a new one.

You aren't going to be satisfied by my answers.

Neither is true for me.

1) I am not unsure. I have reviewed the evidence available to me and found it unconvincing. If additional reputable evidence becomes available I will consider it. If it is verifiable and compelling enough I will change my view. Until then, I am confident that I have chosen the best path forward for my purposes.

2) I do not think that the truth about gods is unknowable to men. I think that if something like the being described in the Bible actually existed there would be overwhelming evidence pointing to it. The absence of overwhelming evidence of a being of that type makes its existence ever more dubious, in my mind.

Defend your claim or lose. Open your mind or lose.

Once you genuinely realize that you lost, we can discuss winning.

Okay, first...good lord man, this reads like the script from a low-budget horror movie. I imagine John Waters reading this.
Moving on...

Open my mind? Projection much? I have admitted in this thread and multiple others that my position is not set is stone. How open are you to the idea that you are wrong? What would it take to convince you that gods exists only in your mind?

Dismissing is all the potter has allowed, the pot could never truly deny the potter. This is the test of your faith.

Sure...whatever you say. I guess I failed the test.

When you're done talking

...when you're done listening

...I will show you

That's all I have ever asked from any believer...show me.

None have ever been able to. You won't either. You don't hold the cards...it would take a literal act of God.

 

[Fargo]

You don't hold the cards...it would take a literal act of God.

LOL, the atheist seems to understand the concepts of faith and grace much better than many believers!

 

[Jludo]

The idea that faith is some sort of intellectually forcible construct destroys the very definition of faith. If faith is nothing more than thinking hard enough, there is no merit or grace in it.

There is a world of difference between intellectually defending your faith and thinking that you can somehow force another to acquiesce to it. By definition, there's only one person who can give Faith and I don't believe he is posting in this thread.

I agree, I've read some christian apologetic books and they don't strike me as helpful to the overall narrative. The argument for Christianity that works is that it's something above reasoning or understanding that some simply haven't seen or received. Trying to malform the religion into something logical and based in historic evidence, I don't believe, is going to be a winning battle. It might help put at ease some followers wrestling with certain questions but it's not going to win over anyone trying to come at religion from a logical/evidence/scientific angle.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

I agree, I've read some christian apologetic books and they don't strike me as helpful to the overall narrative. The argument for Christianity that works is that it's something above reasoning or understanding that some simply haven't seen or received. Trying to malform the religion into something logical and based in historic evidence, I don't believe, is going to be a winning battle. It might help put at ease some followers wrestling with certain questions but it's not going to win over anyone trying to come at religion from a logical/evidence/scientific angle.

Wow. So even being historically true isn't good enough.

 

[Hoosierdood]

The idea that faith is some sort of intellectually forcible construct destroys the very definition of faith. If faith is nothing more than thinking hard enough, there is no merit or grace in it.

There is a world of difference between intellectually defending your faith and thinking that you can somehow force another to acquiesce to it. By definition, there's only one person who can give Faith and I don't believe he is posting in this thread.

It's true that there is only One who can give faith, but it is also true that faith comes from hearing. God, who understands much more than I do, saw fit to use men, with all their flaws and different personalities, to be His mouthpieces. It is also our duty to defend our faith, as Jude wrote in his letter to the Church.

I may not choose the route that ATM has chosen, but I cannot fault him either.