That is exactly what Aceuphisleev is saying.

Meaning, he's not basing his morality on his agnostic atheism. What are you accusing him of exactly?

No it is not exactly what he is saying, it is pretty much the exact opposite of what he is saying.

X gives me little Y, therefore I do C (Aceuphisleev)

is not

X can not give Y, therefore it has no bearing on you doing X. (me)

Meaning, he is basing his lack of morality value "A" (do not lie about your faith) on agnostic atheism and translating it to ("it is ok to lie about your faith"); That is a moral stance.

Poor moral fibre. Should be obvious, really.

Convert to his religion. As long as I am in range.


Maybe. Depends on how much of a pain the principles are. And what wriggle room there is.

How import is the sun rising in the morning as a truth. If you threaten my life or pay me enough, I will happily agree that the sun wont rise.

Regardless, the sun rising in the morning is not going to surprise me.

Absolutely.


What ever tickles your fancy.

You are just playing semantic games here.

When he says "there is not much" he really means "there isn't", not "there is little"*. And by "there isn't" he means nothing but "agnostic atheism cannot/doesn't give anything to base your morality on". "Therefore, it has no bearing on whether it's okay to lie about my faith or not."

* "There isn't much" is just an expression, you don't have to take it literally!

As should be obvious this is not semantics. It is criticism of form of argument and derived conclusions.

It is the second time you have used the "semantic" trump card loosely and wrongfully.

You seem like a clever guy, but your argumentation is lazy and you seem to not read posts very careful before you respond - focusing more on winning than being correct. Maybe you are used to being smarter than those around you?

Not everyone you will meet are pegs to be mowed down. If you want a serious debate on how not believing in god(s) affect morals, that takes precision, consistency and some knowledge of logic.

Communicated arguments stand..."therefore" is a powerful word in debate. Accusing me of semantics because I rip apart a lazily written conclusion is nonsense.

You didn't quite address my explanation of why what Aceuphisleev said was practically the same as what you said (you also didn't address the dictionary definition of the word 'gnostic' from the previous post, which you claimed cannot be used together with 'atheist').

Also, it's a little strange to say based on a couple of posts. Unless you've been reading the other threads in which I've been posting.

In any way, I am not looking for confrontations and I am not trying to win arguments necessarily. FWIW, you are the one who first accused both me and Aceuphisleev of being inconsistent/not making sense.

'Sounds very weird with' != 'cannot be used with'.

I've heard the term, but only referred to. Never come across any self-identifying 'gnostic atheists'. People just tend to stick with 'weak' and 'strong'.

IIRC, there was a thread with this exact name, minus the quotations.

I'd save my life and take the mil. Is it really surprising that a non-believer would make the most common sense choices? I think this question is far more interesting when put to a religious nut.

Well, as All-in-Flynn helped illustrate I never said such a thing, so there is little need to comment on any dictionary definitons. I said I found it weird.

Actually Concerto was the the one who first pointed out you made a contradiction, I merely agreed with him; Accusing something of being wrong/not proven true because it lacks evidence is certainly a paradoxal and/or contradictory statement if that in itself is not held to be a positive statement....which you claimed atheists did not make.

Or in simpler term; If you critique something for lacking evidence, that statement should probably hold evidence.

I certainly pointed out that Aceuphisleev made a poor argument. I'm in no positon to pass judgement on whether he meant something other than what he wrote.

Alright. Let me just say that I am not making up the combination either. Some people do identify themselves as 'gnostic atheists'.

I think I clarified this:

Let me clarify further. It would be ridiculous to say that atheists never make any positive statements about the universe. When I say "my name is X" I am making a positive statement.

I'm the one who made a lazy post here, which is why no one can seem to agree about what I meant. I do have strong beliefs that shape my morality, but they do not stem from some kind of organized religion. In fact, they mostly conflict with organized religion, which is why I would have no problem exploiting it for personal gain in many cases.

Precisely, this is why it is based on other experiences, people, values, etc.

Depends on the religion, but most likely convert.

Same answer as above. I should note that with most major religions I could be a sincere convert and remain an atheist.

It has important implications for how I live my life and how I understand the world. Speaking loosely, I believe that if my life is to have any meaning or purpose I must be involved in its construction. Thus, if I want to live an authentic or honest life, I must be conscious of how I construct this meaning or purpose instead of thinking it is imposed on me by God.

Depends on the reward and what the lie is, but most likely not.

I am not very familiar with the tradition of Christian martyrdom, but I can admire their courage in dying for their convictions. I don't always admire their convictions, and I sometimes think that they were acting foolish in so dying, but certainly in some cases I find Christians who give up their lives in service to others (MLK, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and the ten Boom family are recent examples) very inspirational.