Richard Dawkins a atheist?

I find the blended opinion in the fact that your ether a agnostic or not and your ether a atheist or not. An Agnostic Atheist is a oxymoron. In other words you may what or think that atheism is more plausible but in this case you would still be an Agnostic.

Originally Posted by Judokas

........you would only have a 4 and a 7?

I would have two charts. One for what you are and one for what you wish.

I could agree with most of that but I would not fit on the chart. I would be an...

Agnostic Agnostic
doesn't believe one way or the other and does not think it is possible to know one way or the other.

While I do understand words like Agnostic theist and Agnostic atheist they are both a oxymoron because the words themselves represent opposing ideas. Oxymoron's can have meaning but its still like saying "thats a very blue red".

Hmmm I don't think that quite true. You would be agnostic if we are going by definitions. You have no opinion yet on if any god exists (so there is no first term), but you don't claim to know that no god exists

The point is that the theism is about if you believe or do not in a god or gods and the gnosticism is about if you claim you know it.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

While I do understand words like Agnostic theist and Agnostic atheist they are both a oxymoron because the words themselves represent opposing ideas. Oxymoron's can have meaning but its still like saying "thats a very blue red".

There is no oxymoron and no need to use a different example.

I can clearly have an opinion on god (atheist - there is no god) and I can clearly have an opinion on if I know this (agnostic - does not claim to KNOW that no god exists).

Originally Posted by Judokas

Hmmm I don't think that quite true. You would be agnostic if we are going by definitions. You have no opinion yet on if any god exists (so there is no first term), but you don't claim to know that no god exists

The point is that the theism is about if you believe or do not in a god or gods and the gnosticism is about if you claim you know it.

O I know, I just put in the second agnostic to make it more uniform with the rest of the terms.

Originally Posted by Judokas

There is no oxymoron and no need to use a different example.

I can clearly have an opinion on god (atheist - there is no god) and I can clearly have an opinion on if I know this (agnostic - does not claim to KNOW that no god exists).

I understand what your trying to get at but its Illogical to have two directly opposing opinions. One would have to be where stand (opinion) and one would be a your wish.

Being a agnostic atheist like most proclaimed atheists say they are is just a cop out. If you claim to not know if there is a god or not how can you make a statement of surety claiming other wise. Being a agnostic atheist using your own words would be saying "I don't know but there is no god." That statement is not a logical one.

People that describe themselves as a agnostic atheist should stop being illogical and just say "I'm agnostic but I don't what to be".

Tiresome, contrary, semantic bullshit.

Have you even read this thread before posting.

First, I have been using his descriptions not mine which I thought was quite accommodating of me. If you don't like the formally bestrode meaning of a word don't use it to describe yourself use a different word. Make one up if you must.

Second, You do not enter into a civil debate while using non-stranded definitions. Relay why must up be down with you Blondin. Someone like PZ Myers (the man that wrote the blog in your link) should be ashamed of himself if arguing schematics is his goal when debating scientifically of philosophically.

Lastly, Blondin what would you call someone that posted 4 words. Two of witch where insults and one being profanity and on top of that not adding anything to the tread of his own, only posting the work of others. I would call that person a troll but you don't like dictionaries so you tell me.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

Have you even read this thread before posting.

Have you read anything but your own postings since you joined this community? (note use of question mark - that's called punctuation)

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

First, I have been using his descriptions not mine which I thought was quite accommodating of me. If you don't like the formally bestrode meaning of a word don't use it to describe yourself use a different word. Make one up if you must.

"formally bestrode"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

Normally I wouldn't make a big deal of typos or grammar but, in your case, I feel obliged for two reasons: a) your spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure are atrocious (at times completely unintelligible; bordering on word salad), b) you are the one trying to make some kind of argument based on word meanings yet you keep on using words completely out of context.

Words are defined by human beings; individuals are not defined by words. It's a cheap and dishonest debating tactic to try to use common usage definitions of words to attach meanings to people's statements that are not intended or apparent from context. If we could just forget the labels I challenge you to cite any statements by Dawkins where he professes to know there is no god. I agree with Dawkins that claiming to know there is no god is exactly as silly as claiming to know there is a god. For that matter, claiming that we can never know whether there is or isn't a god is akin to Luddite claims that man would never fly or travel at speeds greater than 9 mph.

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

Second, You do not enter into a civil debate while using non-stranded definitions. Relay why must up be down with you Blondin. Someone like PZ Myers (the man that wrote the blog in your link) should be ashamed of himself if arguing schematics is his goal when debating scientifically of philosophically.

Is "non-stranded" supposed to be "non-standard"? Is "relay" supposed to be "relate"? Is "schematics" supposed to be "semantics"? Are you trying to communicate or just draw attention to yourself?

Originally Posted by BlueMonkey

Lastly, Blondin what would you call someone that posted 4 words. Two of witch where insults and one being profanity and on top of that not adding anything to the tread of his own, only posting the work of others. I would call that person a troll but you don't like dictionaries so you tell me.

I'm certainly not a troll, as a modicum of research would have shown you.

I'm a person who is concerned with addressing unfair treatment and injustice carried out under willfully ignorant or misguided ideologies. Baseless notions about morality of contraception & abortion, murder of abortion doctors, suppression of civil rights for gays, modern day witch hunts, teaching superstition in public schools, religious oppression/subjugation of women and children, fatwas for blasphemy, psychic fraudsters bilking people of their life-savings, self-styled 'natural healing' gurus sowing seeds of doubt and mistrust in science base medicine... these are things that matter.

In the words of Richard Feynman, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool." We are none of us infallible and the scientific method is the only tool shown to be effective for getting at the truth. Science may approach the truth asymptotically but approaching truth is preferable to latching on to "truths" that are nothing but dreams or wishful thinking. Most people are not stupid or wicked; they just don't realize or won't admit that none of us are as objective as we think we are. Instinct and intuition aren't all they're cracked up to be.

While my natural tendency is to "live & let live" ("let sleeping dogs lie" would be more accurate) I think it is generally detrimental to all of us to not challenge flawed thinking when confronted with it. Truth does matter.

However, I have very little patience with narcissistic drama queens and poseurs who are only interested in manufacturing controversy where there is none.

WOW! you fell for my trap lol, you are a troll.

Originally Posted by Blondin

Have you read anything but your own postings since you joined this community?

yes

Originally Posted by Blondin

"formally bestrode"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

It means to formally give and standard meaning.

Originally Posted by Blondin

Normally I wouldn't make a big..........

First, your never obliged to troll about grammar and spelling.

Second, I have never quoted a dictionary on here. I always use or ask for others definitions.

Last, Show me the out of context.

Originally Posted by Blondin

Words are defined by human beings; individuals are not defined by words.

Yes they are just like everything else.

Originally Posted by Blondin

It's a cheap and dishonest debating tactic to try to use common usage .........

And you just proved why everyone should the standard definitions. Because it causes misunderstandings and is just down right rude. Look if you say "up" I will think you mean up.

Originally Posted by Blondin

If we could just forget the labels I challenge you to cite any statements by Dawkins where he professes to know there is no god. I agree with........

So you agree with me that hes an agnostic..... Chapter two second page God Delusion, he says he is what he refers to as a temporary agnostic. Its even in the video I posted before.

Originally Posted by Blondin

For that matter, claiming that .........

And that statement show hes not even a good scientist. Agnostics know its not possible to know if there is a god or not though a logical process. First, How could god prove to you that "he" is god and not a just a super powerful alien and then on the other side reality has two possibilities. It ether infinity regresses or it just stops somewhere witch will leave the questions where did this come from and why does this do what it does. Never proving the god question one why or the other.

Originally Posted by Blondin

I'm a person who is concerned with addressing unfair treatment and injustice carried out under willfully ignorant or ........

I agree 100% and I would prefer you to care about injustice etc.... Just because your starting to have a habit of trolling don't mean you can't care.

also sorry for the sorted quotes the post is just to big. Its all above.