A question game for agnostics. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SpanishMatMaster -> A question game for agnostics. (11/5/2011 11:53:34 AM)

Ok, first the disclaimer: I would like that people who answer accept this as a game and follow its "rules". I do not force anybody and don't try to impose anything, but I set up this game and if you want to play (and you expect me to play with you) please abide to the rules. If you don't want you, you are free, but I am also free not to play with you.

The game is for agnostics. For the case: I mean people who do not deny the existence of God, but also do not affirm that God exists. Rule #1: Do not discuss this definition, if you want to call them mentally "Eduardo's Agnostics" or "Budolobeedolapirious people" it's ok for me, I do not care about how you call them as long as we understand each other and for that, in this thread, please accept the word "agnostic".

Rule #2: If you are not an agnostic, sorry, this game is not for you.

The game is a questions-and-answers game.
* If I can convert you to positive Atheism, you win.
* If you can show me that my logical demostration is erroneous, I win.
Yes, you got it right - the one who was wrong is the one who wins. He is the one who learns from this, and learning is the actual target of the game.

Rule #3: Do not discuss that definition, nor try to make it tighter with something like "absolute total dogmatic 100% proved security that...." God does not exist. If you simply say "God does not exist", no matter how "secure" you feel, you are already strong Atheist in the context of this thread. Again, internally (or outside this thread) you can tell that "this is not real strong Atheism!" and invite me to discuss definitions, but here, in this thread, please accept that one.

Rule #4: Consider God a person (that is, a "who", and not only a "what") who created the universe that we can perceive. Again - please accept this simplification and do not try to transform this game in a game on definitions. That's simply not its point.

So... if you are agnostic, my first move are these two questions:

1) Why are you agnostic?
2) Do you have a nose?

Please... or better... Rule #5: Answer as concisely and to the point as you can.

Best regards!

UPDATE: I won't discuss here anything else, I will just play the game :) . Sorry. If you want from me any answers about anything else please contact me in another thread. Thank you very much.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/5/2011 11:56:17 AM)

Seriously, since you have 75% of collarme on hide, who do you think is going to play your game? More to the point, how will you know how they are answering your questions, since you have them on hide?



nancygirl34652 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/5/2011 12:00:06 PM)

1. because

2. yes

was that concise enough?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/5/2011 12:04:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: nancygirl34652
1. because
2. yes
was that concise enough?

Nancy, if you are not ready to play with good will, then we better let it be, ok? No need to troll.



Anaxagoras -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/5/2011 12:48:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
The game is a questions-and-answers game.
* If I can convert you to positive Atheism, you win.
* If you can show me that my logical demostration is erroneous, I win.
Yes, you got it right - the one who was wrong is the one who wins. He is the one who learns from this, and learning is the actual target of the game.

Most of the game "rules" are actually things one is prohibited from doing to discuss the issue properly. He says its just a game but he who is master of all mats is clearly an atheist who will teach us poor agnostics presumably to be atheist. Thus if we er... "win" we actually loose the argument! Ain't much of a "game", give me naughts and crosses anyday. [8|]



Aylee -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/5/2011 12:54:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Seriously, since you have 75% of collarme on hide, who do you think is going to play your game? More to the point, how will you know how they are answering your questions, since you have them on hide?


This was my thought.

That and don't games belong in the "games" section?


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: nancygirl34652
1. because
2. yes
was that concise enough?

Nancy, if you are not ready to play with good will, then we better let it be, ok? No need to troll.


Better be careful, Nancy. He will take his ball and go home. Or put you on hide. [:D]


Being on hide with him is kind of like going over to the dark side. There is cookies and chocolate!



MadAxeman -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 12:43:22 PM)

First rule of Twat Club is we don't discuss Twat Club.



LaTigresse -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 2:29:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadAxeman

First rule of Twat Club is we don't discuss Twat Club.


Priceless.



Termyn8or -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 6:57:30 PM)

FR

As if to direct a play without actually writing it. Sorry, I can figure out something better to do. I doubt you all could even agree whether I am agnostic or not, but this thread is not the place for my beliefs, so it's on it's own.

T^T



Iamsemisweet -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 7:21:16 PM)

This is what happens when you hide everybody.  They don't show up to play your game.



DionysusRising66 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 7:25:04 PM)

Agnostic is when you can't decide if the unicorns and satyrs in the bible are real or not, there's just not enough evidence in yet to come to a conclusion. :-)



provfivetine -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 8:21:32 PM)

I'll play your game.

1. Agnosticism is the only belief system that adheres to the rigors of the scientific method. The phrase "God exists" (positive theism) and/or "God does not exist" (positive atheism) are both non-falsifiable propositions. If you argue either of the aforementioned propositions then you are ignoring the scientific method and are committing the gravest possible error in scholarly research. Positive theists and positive atheists have a lot in common; they both are smug cranks that attempt to pass off their own normative judgements as truth.

2. Yes.



DionysusRising66 -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 8:40:36 PM)

If you wanted to define "god" as the subconscious mind, which would actually just be your-self, then I could go along with the existence of this "god." I could maybe even go along with a little sun worship, after all it is the sun that gives us light and life. That's never how "god" is defined though... it's always the same old backwards ignorant Christian, Muslim, Jewish all powerful war-lord worship, the god of ignorance. :-P

The slaves shall serve! ~Crowley



Anaxagoras -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 8:44:39 PM)

I think noses exist. I think God might exist but then again he might not because he is kind of harder to see than a nose. Anyone happy with this answer? [:)]



MadAxeman -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/7/2011 9:55:42 PM)

Well you can pick your God, but you can't...

Fuck it



GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/8/2011 2:08:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

I'll play your game.

1. Agnosticism is the only belief system that adheres to the rigors of the scientific method. The phrase "God exists" (positive theism) and/or "God does not exist" (positive atheism) are both non-falsifiable propositions. If you argue either of the aforementioned propositions then you are ignoring the scientific method and are committing the gravest possible error in scholarly research. Positive theists and positive atheists have a lot in common; they both are smug cranks that attempt to pass off their own normative judgements as truth.


You just called almost everyone on the planet "smug cranks". Have you ever considered the possibility that almost everyone else might not be the problem here?

As for statements about the existence of God, when you capitalize that G it stops being a non-falsifiable proposition. You are now talking about a specific mythological being. I can say for instance that a deity who created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh does not exist because we know that things took a great deal longer than that.



Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/8/2011 5:59:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

You just called almost everyone on the planet "smug cranks"...

I can say for instance that a deity who created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh does not exist because we know that things took a great deal longer than that.

It is, however, a characteristic of "smug cranks" to argue from a literal interpretation of myth. [:D]

K.




GotSteel -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/8/2011 7:36:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
It is, however, a characteristic of "smug cranks" to argue from a literal interpretation of myth. [:D]

Actually, I'm arguing that it be categorized as myth because it isn't truth.

Now that doesn't mean that one can't find meaning and value in it. There are plenty of works of fiction which I've found meaningful. For instance I found Frank Herberts social commentary in the Dune series quite illuminating as a kid.

However, that doesn't make praying to Shai Hulud any less ridiculous.


[image]local://upfiles/566126/E980EF72030A4DC58237D351C9E025D5.jpg[/image]



provfivetine -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/8/2011 7:50:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

You just called almost everyone on the planet "smug cranks". Have you ever considered the possibility that almost everyone else might not be the problem here?



Someone that likens normative statements to objective truth is not a problem?

quote:



As for statements about the existence of God, when you capitalize that G it stops being a non-falsifiable proposition. You are now talking about a specific mythological being.



Yes, one that we cannot test for.

quote:



I can say for instance that a deity who created the heavens and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh does not exist because we know that things took a great deal longer than that.



Now you're changing the parameters and adding other factors into the equation. Your assertion about the universe taking longer than 6 days to create--as it relates to the existence of a Diety--is immaterial. Your point falsifies the "6-day work/1 day rest" argument made by the authors of the Book of Genesis, but it does nothing to confirm or falsify the existence of a deity (HINT: because you can't confirm or falsify the existence of a deity).



Kirata -> RE: A question game for agnostics. (11/8/2011 7:58:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

However, that doesn't make praying to Shai Hulud any less ridiculous.

Since your primary interest is promoting ridicule, it behooves you to avoid becoming the brunt of it. To argue that the God of Genesis doesn't exist because it isn't true that the world was make in six days is simply nonsense, no different in kind from the nonsense that fundamentalist preachers spew. To interpret a myth literally is the functional equivalent of taking a metaphor literally. It proves you are illiterate, not that the God of Genesis doesn't exist.

K.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125