Creationists

[Hollie]

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

I'm actually fascinated by your preoccupation with Dawkins. It seems that you assign to him a position of authority as it relates to your religious belief. Basically, your feverish, sweaty, chest heaving preoccupation with Dawkins belies the fact that you find his arguments convincing so that any hint of movement on his part (agnostic to atheist) is seen falsely as validation of your religion.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

Act like a grown up. If you have something to covey to daws, write it out. This is a message board. You write out stuff.

Have you not been reading the thread ? I have written it out, I even gave him a history lesson.

 

[newpolitics]

Well to say an agnostic is one in the same as an atheist. I'll try and reason with you once again. Why would dawkins say he is now an agnostic when everyone knew he was an atheist by his own words if there is no difference ?

Dawkins use to say flat out there is no God he said it in that debate I posted but now say's design and there being a God is possible he did this after lennox handed it to him. He just believes since they can't test for God he he don't have an opinion on the subject. That is not atheism,atheism is out right rejection that there is a God.

I can't believe your friends didn't try and rescue you from yourself.

Two you were not honest about who was getting their butts handed to them.

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.

 

[Hollie]

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

Act like a grown up. If you have something to covey to daws, write it out. This is a message board. You write out stuff.

Have you not been reading the thread ? I have written it out, I even gave him a history lesson.

I am current with the thread. Why are telling me or anyone else to tell daws, anything.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.

Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Act like a grown up. If you have something to covey to daws, write it out. This is a message board. You write out stuff.

Have you not been reading the thread ? I have written it out, I even gave him a history lesson.

I am current with the thread. Why are telling me or anyone else to tell daws, anything.

Nevermind

 

[newpolitics]

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.

Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?

which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?


The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count (although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic.) Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Atheism: The LACK OF BELIEF in a god

Agnosticism: The lack of KNOWLEDGE or the ability to know or claim that a god exists

Dawkins has always been an atheist because he never had a BELIEF that a god exists. He is agnostic, ALSO, because he doesn't claim to KNOW whether one may exist, with absolute certainty, because such a claim is epistemically uncertain, necessarily. The two terms are not mutally exclusive. One has to do with belief, the other with knowledge, by DEFINITION.

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.

If dawkins claims to be an atheist at one point and then claims to be agnostic later, how can you say that is not a change in postions ? you can't be both.

 

[newpolitics]

Tell daws that they are not mutually exclusive. Dawkins use to admit to being an atheist and went as far to say there is no God,by saying he is now agnostic is saying he can't say there is or not a God. That is a change in position.

It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.

If dawkins claims to be an atheist at one point and then claims to be agnostic later, how can you say that is not a change in postions ? you can't be both.

Do you not read? Read what I WROTE. I'm not going over this whole thing again. They are NOT mutually exclusive, so you CAN be both. One has to do with knowledge, the other with belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.

Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?

which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?


The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic. Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's not a change in position, because they are not mutually exclusive, as I just pointed out. They almost have nothing to do with one another, at least as far as holding positions go. You can be any combination of the two: agnostic atheist, agnostic theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist. He doesn't claim to know that necessarily, no god could ever exist, but does not believe the claims that any gods do exist.

If dawkins claims to be an atheist at one point and then claims to be agnostic later, how can you say that is not a change in postions ? you can't be both.

Do you not read? Read what I WROTE. I'm not going over this whole thing again. They are NOT mutually exclusive, so you CAN be both. One has to do with knowledge, the other with belief. Knowledge is a subset of belief.

You can't be both unless you want to contradict yourself.

 

[Hollie]

Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?

which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?


The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic. Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.

FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".

Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.

Thanks.

 

[newpolitics]

Mutually exclusive means the two positions are contradictory to each other. Why is this hard for you guys to grasp ?

which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?


The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic. Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)

I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position

Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).

http://www.slideshare.net/Reconcile2.0/beliefs-versus-knowledge

 

[Youwerecreated]

which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?


The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic. Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.

FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".

Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.

Thanks.

You are living in a dream world.

 

[Hollie]

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.

FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".

Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.

Thanks.

You are living in a dream world.

You forwarded a ridiculous argument: the "prove it isn't" argument and you were scolded for doing so.

Accept responsibility for what you write out. Next time you make such a ridiculous argument you'll get a time out.

 

[Youwerecreated]

which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?


The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic. Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)

I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position

Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).

Beliefs versus Knowledge

Definition of ATHEISM
1

archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
2

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity



1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\







Definition of AGNOSTIC
1

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

You are spinning it just like Daws.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.

FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".

Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.

Thanks.

You are living in a dream world.

You forwarded a ridiculous argument: the "prove it isn't" argument and you were scolded for doing so.

Accept responsibility for what you write out. Next time you make such a ridiculous argument you'll get a time out.

 

[Youwerecreated]

which is why I said they are NOT mutually exclusive. How hard is it to actually read what I wrote?


The point is, that Dawkins hasn't changed his position. He's always been an atheist. He may have gone from gnostic atheism to agnostic atheism, but I don't even believe that, because to be a gnostic atheist (or gnostic theist) is to claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does or does not exist. This is epistemically impossible to claim, and so a gnostic position should never be taken. We are all agnostic, technically, because a god has never been proven to exist conclusively or empirically. Testimonial evidence does not count, although I realize that to the observer, they may claim to know that a god exists, so might consider themselves a gnostic. Dawkins knows this. He may, in fact, believe that no god exists, but that is different than not believing that a god does exist.

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)

I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position

Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).

Beliefs versus Knowledge

Do you believe God exists ?

Are you an atheist ?

 

[newpolitics]

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

He has already proved things are not designed. Prove he hasn't.

FYI, the above was a lesson in the "prove it isn't" paradigm that crushes the typical religious insistence that "my gods are true until you prove they aren't".

Ok, I've proved your gods are false. Prove I haven't.

Thanks.

You are living in a dream world.

Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:

1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.

 

[newpolitics]

Also the change in position is admitting complex things appear to have been designed. If they appear to be designed there is a designer so if they only appear to be designed he needs to prove they were not designed.

You really are actually ignoring everything I have written and continuing along your path as if I hadn't refuted what you are saying. There is no middle ground for belief. Either you do believe, or you don't. There isn't a third option. (Law of excluded middle)

I don't believe the Dawkins ever changed his position. He was simply admitting, as any atheist should, that we can not know whether a god actually exists. No sensible atheist actually can say with certainty, that no god exists. That is all Dawkins was saying. This does not represent a shift in his position, but rather, a clarification of it. You have misinterpreted it, because you want to believe he did and are unable to even take in what I am writing right now, because you're beliefs are already set on the matter, as you have just demonstrated by utterly ignoring what I wrote in refuting your position

Here, take a look at this. It fully explains how belief and knowledge are two different things that can be combined (eg, agnostic atheist).

Beliefs versus Knowledge

Do you believe God exists ?

Are you an atheist ?

No. Yes, which necessarily follows from the first question. Hopefully, you'd know that by now. You didn't need to ask the second question.