You know. I really wish you would participate in discussions once in awhile rather than try to have youtube videos speak for you. Most of the time the links don't even seem relevant to the conversation and feels like spamming. You have to take into consideration that not everyone has time to waste time watching videos when the sentiment can be summed up in paragraphs that take less than a minute to read.
Well, that certainly explains your disdain for atheists, attempts to classify atheism as a belief system and manipulate the definition of the word.
Atheism is trendy like not playing golf is trendy. One does not 'become' an atheist to be trendy and then go back to being a theist when it's too mainstream to be cool. It's simply the lack of belief. A belief, like all others, that some will feel arrogant for having. Do you define all groups by the dickheads or just the ones you don't belong to?
Oh, they did? Good for them.
Exactly. So this behavior obviously isn't exclusive to atheism so I don't see why you attempt to paint atheists as the sole group responsible for arrogance when it is the individuals not the group. If you think atheism makes someone an asshole or that douchebaggery is a characteristic excluive to atheism, then you are mistaken.
Agreed. I, personally, have never seen an atheist go out of their way to be a dick about it. I know it happens, of course, because my experiences are subjective. Not everyone will have the same experience.
People can just skip over it you know.Get over your B.I.B.S. Big Ignorrant Baby Syndrome.
No need to be insulting. The reason I mentioned it is because I am more interested in what the individual people here have to say rather than what videos they like. The use of videos to support a point is not my issue, it is that it seems that's all you bring to the table sometimes. If I skip over the links, you really don't seem to have much else to say. Again, don't act all butt-hurt because I want to know more about what you have to say.
just look at the wrangling in this very forum over who is or is not an atheist or agnostic. these two words have simple easy to understan meanings yet they have been tortured into bizzare forms which would do a pentecostal televangelist proud.
so, my theism is proof that i hate atheists and hold them in disdain? now THATS A STRETCH.
Fellow non-fairytale-believers often look at me strangely when I tell them that, within the context of arguing with religious fanatics, science is just another religion. The problem debating with Christians is often the circle of claiming the bible holds the truth because it's written by God which in turn is true because it's written in the bible God wrote it. Science works much the same way though. Scientists are able to claim with near certainty that there are certain gasses and fluids and perhaps even life on planets and places they've never been. They can't really go there (yet) and proof it, but they sure believe it. If you'd ask why, you'd end up in a similar circle (science proving science).
No I don't know what they say, how does the story end?
Frankly that does sum it up quite nicely. It is in my blunt opinion plain dumb to believe in 2000 year old desert tales. And there you have the difference between MODERN science and how people thought before they became educated and were still dumb (and still had sand in their vagina).
I have nothing needed to say so skip away.
Yet you cannot even seem to get these 'simple' meanings correct
No. You are partially correct. You have the root words correct but you are combining them incorrect. Agnostic is about whether or not one can have knowledge about a subject, in this case god or gods. This is the position of Huxley, the man who coined the term. If you feel that the god question is unknowable, then you are agnostic.
Once again, a-theism is lack of theism. One that doesn't possess theistic beliefs. You cannot change the root theism into deism. That's not only wrong, it's dishonest.
This is bullshit and usually claimed by people with an agenda. This is an example of only one type of atheism, the gnostic or strong atheist position and by no means the most common form. What do you call a person that has never been introduced to idea of a god? He cannot be agnostic because that requires thought on the subject of gods. You are combining the traits of soft and weak atheists and calling them agnostic. They most certainly will be agnostic but again, it's a different question that's answered by the terminology. What do you call the person that thinks there is a god but doesn't think he knows or thinks that this question is impossible to know? He is a theist by definition, he believes there's a god... but he's also agnostic because of his position on what is knowable.
I have been on this board for a long time and I have rarely read anyone's post that dismisses anything, supernatural or otherwise with certainty. The certitude is a strawman leveled against the skeptic that doubts things like the supernatural because of lack of evidence. However, I challenge you to find any quotes from one of the atheists here or even someone like Sam Harris, Penn Gillette, Hitchens or even Dawkins that claims such absolute certainty you attribute to atheists. Russel's teapot and The Flying Spaghetti Monster are two methods of explaining the atheist position about certainty.
Not all claims have equal validity. If I told you Beefbisquit had eggs for breakfast today, you probably wouldn't spend much time deciding whether or not to doubt this claim but if I said that he astral traveled last night and spoke to my spirit guide, you would have plenty of questions to ask of me and would probably doubt the claim until you had sufficient evidence to believe it.
Explain the butthurt. People get frustrated and exasperated trying to have an intelligent, rational discussion with people that make ridiculous claims regardless of who makes them. What some of us do get upset about is using non-critical, magical thinking to promote some agenda that causes actual harm to people. Not made up harm but actual injustice, physical harm and even death can accompany people that think they know some god wants of them.
So because I get tired of strawman attacks and mischaracterization of my philosphical position to attempt to marginalize it, that proves that atheism is trendy, hipster fashion? Logic fail! First, you misidentify my disdain for your accusatory nature 'rage.' Second, even if I was angry as you claim, I fail to see how that makes rational skeptical atheism trendy or fake intellectually. Seems like a non-sequitur to me.
It bothers me not one iota if you believe in one or many gods. I used to. I'm not upset that some atheists are poseurs, I get upset when people [read - YOU] try to use that to label all/most atheists that way in an ad hominem attack of their position rather than have actually have reasoned debate why they may or may not be wrong. I'll wait while you find quotes from some of these reasoned atheists that can't explain why they don't believe in gods.
yep.... thats butthurt.
Good post man, sums it up nicely, not stuck on semantics. The format alone enticed me to read it. Though next time show some respect for yourself and capitalize "I" as well
Dude there's like 50 I's in that post.... nah. lol. But thanks, the feedback is much appreciated.Good post man, sums it up nicely, not stuck on semantics. The format alone enticed me to read it. Though next time show some respect for yourself and capitalize "I" as well
Repeating the same incorrect sentence does not for a correct statement, make.
Agnostics only claim to not know, for sure. They can still believe or not believe, not that any of that has to do with simply having an opinion.
Proving any negative is impossible. That doesn't mean we believe in anything we can't disprove, that would just be silly.
The perfect handle? You don't have any handle on what atheism, theism, and agnosticism, are based upon your definitions above.
Why do you keep using incorrect terms? Seems like an agenda to me....
Continuing to insist that this is the case does not make it true. Since the vast majority of self-identified atheists do not use your definition, you will constantly be creating straw men to argue against. As someone that is familiar with debate, you should know that the first goal in any discussion is to agree on terms and definitions, otherwise there can be no progress made on substantive matters. You're welcome to proclaim that atheism is a positive claim that a god doesn't exist but just be aware that it will not be productive discussing any issues with actual atheists that don't proscribe to your definition.
Being agnostic does not mean you don't have an opinion on a subject. That's ridiculous. Quit changing the meaning of things to suit your agenda.
Until you can produce,as requested, a quote from atheists that any of them have claimed to have knowledge about the lack of gods, this assertion of yours will continue to stink as most shit does.
You once again confuse my frustration of you as lack of having a handle rather than the righteous annoyance I have with you for continually misrepresenting my theological position. If I said that as a polytheist you must also believe in pink unicorns that fart rainbows, you would rightly be able to tell me that's not your position. However, here you are telling all of us self-identified atheists that we believe something we do not.
I have no idea other than some agenda-driven reason why you would continue to insist that we aren't correct in calling ourselves atheists if we don't take the positive claim position. If you can enlighten us as to why you want to misrepresent the position of lack of acceptance of the theistic position, by all means tell us.
I think maybe he just want's to give atheists a bad wrap, or keep a notion in his mind that atheists are stupid/bad people. Some people do have a mind block though that won't allow them to see reason or think in a certain way, i've seen this time and time again. We've spelled it out for him in complicated ways, and easy ways... but nothing can change a mind that refuses to change.
aldous huxley can pound sand, i care not what he claims, nor do i consider him an authority on any subject save implausible fiction novels.
