On 14 May, 02:51, beelzebub
yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 13, 5:15 pm, Andy W
mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On 13 May, 05:32, beelzebub
yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>> On May 12, 9:43 pm, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>>>>>Bottom line: Â Atheists hate to confront the fact that their beliefs
>>>>>are in fact a "belief." Â What else can they be? Â There is no
>>>>>alternative.
>
>>>> Of course there is an alternative,
>
>>> Such as? Â Either you believe in god or you don't. Â And if you don't
>>> believe, THAT is your belief. Stop playing idiot semantic games,
>>> unless you really are that much of an idiot.
>
>>>> but you are just playing Humpty
>>>> Dumpty and will never admit that all of this nonsense you are spouting
>>>> comes from your religious foolishness.
>
>>> I'm an agnostic, genius.
>
>> I've seen people use several different definitions when they use that
>> term about themselves so can you please clarify which one you're
>> using?
>
> Sure. Â I believe that the existence of god is presently unknown. Â It
> may be knowable, but that fact itself is unknowable. Â More information
> is needed.
>
> (I have heard this described as mild agnosticism, but I despise that
> term. Â I am an agnostic in the tradition of Thomas Huxley. "In matters
> of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which
> are not demonstrated or demonstrable.")
>
>
>
>> And just to avoid any possible ambiguity:
>> Do you believe that a god or gods exist? Yes or no.
>> Do you believe that a god or gods does not exist? Yes or no.
>
>> Andy
>
> These questions have no meaning to me, both involve faith. Â I neither
> believe nor disbelieve without evidence, and I have none.
Then there are no gods you believe in; round here we would call that
"weak atheism". Doesn't sound much better than "mild agnosticism" does
it?
So I was wondering: how do you reconcile your statement above with
your previous statement:
"Either you believe in god or you don't. And if you don't believe,
THAT is your belief."
Andy
