*regarding atheism vs agnosticism*
I'll attempt to clarify that line for you a bit.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Last edited: