Debunked: Socialism has never worked

[Tassman]

Nah, I got you pegged, and you know it. That's why below you don't go with the smallest percentage, but with the largest, and that's why you've counted on the largest since you used that survey as evidence for Finland being an "atheistic" nation from the start.

excludes theists. And all these people comprise 60% of the population of Finland. Got it?

We went through this the last time you spammed this stupid survey. I even linked to it in this thread! Last go around it was with Leonhard, and your claim was that Denmark was the atheist nation. It was the exact same case. The source is NOT Adherents.com. Just because you found it on their website does not make them the source (never mind the dubious claim that they're reputable). The survey was compiled by atheist advocate and anti-Christian, Phil Zuckerman of Pitzer College for the The Cambridge Companion to Atheism.

Again, I don't care what you elaborated on,

Well you should care, that's what debate is all about.

not to mention that you're wrong on that as well. All those who are non-theists are not, then, atheistic. I don't "choose" to define someone who is spiritual as theist. No where in this thread have I stated that, that's just something you made up. What I've pointed out is that those who believe in spirits and life forces are NOT atheists. You can't claim them as atheists just so you can be right about Finland being an atheistic nation. That's ridiculous. I also pointed out that the survey I'm using explicitly makes the point that those who selected "You don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force" were the atheists. The survey itself does that, not me!

Well, you're wrong. Clarification or not.

Oh well argued.

Being held to account for what? I'm not obligated to defend claims or points that I haven't been making. I entered this conversation because you stated that Finland was an atheistic nation based on a garbage survey you found at adherent.com. We had already gone over that dumb survey earlier this year, when you made pretty much the same claim about another nation, so I knew exactly what you were up to. All you had to do was state that you were wrong, but you couldn't do that. You had to double down.

EXCEPT,

I don't need to include them into my club, and nor have I done that. You know that I haven't done that, but strawmen is all you got. All I need to do is point out that they're not atheistic, and they aren't. From the New Encyclopedia of Unbelief edited by Richard Dawkins,
[indent]Positive atheists reject the theistic God and with it belief in an afterlife, in a cosmic destiny, in a supernatural origin of the universe, in an immortal soul, in the revealed nature of the Bible and Qu'ran, and in a religious foundation of morality. Positive atheism in its broadest sense also rejects both the theistic and pantheistic aspects of Hinduism as well as the lesser gods of Theravada Buddhism and Jainism.

But they are not theists are they

[Adrift]

excludes theists. EXCEPT,they are not theists are they

This is weak stuff Tass, even for you.

[Mountain Man]

Well, as one agnostic, I think, correctly puts it,

Yes, except that referring to non-theists as "freethinkers" is a rather obvious swipe at theists, and it's inaccurate anyway, because they're "free" to think anything except that it might be true that God exists.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, except that referring to non-theists as "freethinkers" is a rather obvious swipe at theists, and it's inaccurate anyway, because they're "free" to think anything except that it might be true that God exists.

I believe they are "free" to believe that, but they choose not to.

[JimL]

Right. Most people if they are completely honest with themselves (even most believers) will admit that they can't have absolute certainty of anything. So if we're using agnosticism in that regard, then we're all agnostic, but clearly that's not what Huxley meant when he coined the word. What he was referring to was a wholly different path from others who claimed to have some sort of gnosis/knowledge about things he though himself ignorant on. In his own words, he coined the term to separate himself and others like him from "an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker". As Huxley put it in the The Agnostic Annual,

1. Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe.
2. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.

Yes, we should never make the mistake of letting reason and observation be our guide.

[Mountain Man]

I believe they are "free" to believe that, but they choose not to.

Nope, because as far as atheists are concerned, the moment you entertain anything but atheism, you're no longer regarded as a "freethinker".

[Sparko]

There are agnostics that don't really look to deeply into the subject and there are those that do. I do, and for that reason I now lean atheist, or what you might call strong agnostic. My mind remains open to the possibility that there may be a god, but I am very highly skeptical of that idea. You on the other hand are the absolutely closed minded one, thinking that you know with certainty that for which you only hold a belief. Hypocrite!

But I don't try to pretend I am open-minded on the idea of God. I am not. I truly believe in God. I am open to someone proving he doesn't exist, but until then I believe in him. On the other hand you actually don't believe there is a God but you say you are open to the chance someone can prove he exists. So I would say that makes you an atheist, not an agnostic. An agnostic would say that he doesn't know one way or the other, or just doesn't care.

I am agnostic about some things, like the end times. There are various views on the return of Jesus. You have premillenial, post millenial, a-millenial, preterism, pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib. I have studied all of them and I think each view has some fairly good evidence for their view, so I don't know which one to believe, and I really don't care which one is correct. A true agnostic on God would say the same: there is good evidence for God and against God and that he doesn't know which to believe.

[JimL]

But I don't try to pretend I am open-minded on the idea of God. I am not. I truly believe in God. I am open to someone proving he doesn't exist, but until then I believe in him. On the other hand you actually don't believe there is a God but you say you are open to the chance someone can prove he exists. So I would say that makes you an atheist, not an agnostic. An agnostic would say that he doesn't know one way or the other, or just doesn't care.

Semantics really. No one knows one way or the other so by that definition we are all agnostics. But yeah, like I said, I lean atheist and the reason for that is because there is no evidence for the theists claim of god. The atheists isn't making the claim, the theist is, so it is the theists responsibility to prove it, not the athiests responsibility to disprove it.

I am agnostic about some things, like the end times. There are various views on the return of Jesus. You have premillenial, post millenial, a-millenial, preterism, pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib. I have studied all of them and I think each view has some fairly good evidence for their view, so I don't know which one to believe, and I really don't care which one is correct. A true agnostic on God would say the same: there is good evidence for God and against God and that he doesn't know which to believe.

No, an agnostic, if we want to get technical, is just someone who admits to having no knowledge one way or the other.

[Adrift]

Yes, we should never make the mistake of letting reason and observation be our guide.

You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

[Adrift]

Yes, except that referring to non-theists as "freethinkers" is a rather obvious swipe at theists, and it's inaccurate anyway, because they're "free" to think anything except that it might be true that God exists.

Right. We get into that a little later in the thread.

[Adrift]

The atheists isn't making the claim, the theist is, so it is the theists responsibility to prove it, not the athiests responsibility to disprove it.

This is such a weird claim. You live on a planet where the VAST majority of those who live on it believe in some sort of divinity or spirituality. Have always believed in some sort of divinity or spirituality. It's practically the default state on this planet. It should be the atheist who is required to prove that these things do not exist. You're the tiny, itty-bitty minority. Why should we have to prove anything to you (outside of Evangelical reasons)?

[Mountain Man]

I would expect an agnostic to able to take either side of the debate, to not only be able to explain the best arguments for and against theism but also describe the weaknesses of those arguments. Can Jimmy do this? I rather doubt it.

[shunyadragon]

Nope, because as far as atheists are concerned, the moment you entertain anything but atheism, you're no longer regarded as a "freethinker".

The choice to be an atheist remains a product of "free" choice, unless you are advocating a deterministic view that ones choice of believe system predestined.

[Sparko]

The choice to be an atheist remains a product of "free" choice, unless you are advocating a deterministic view that ones choice of believe system predestined.

The choice to be a theist remains a free choice also. It is not like being an atheist makes you any "free-er"

[Mountain Man]

The choice to be an atheist remains a product of "free" choice, unless you are advocating a deterministic view that ones choice of believe system predestined.

That's not exactly what is meant by "freethinker". The dictionary definition is "a person who thinks freely or independently :one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially :one who rejects or is skeptical of religious dogma".