Atheism IS theism

froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Atheism IS theism

To me, atheism/theism is the purvue of the childish.  It's just a weaksauce, childish claim that you can't prove.  Learn to dance the Dao, you fricking brat, or   If you want equally strong arguments on both sides, I'll go there all day.  I think everyone on this forum needs to get laid and/or try shrooms (but no hard drugs, you intellectually-lazy mofos).

 


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Club

Atheistextremist wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Don't worry AE, I got your back on the drinking thing.

 

What say we start a club, something along the lines of “Atheists for strong drink”? We can start with you, me and Hitch, although considering his current medical situation, Hitch may have to stand as a member emeritus.

 

 

Perhaps we could be filled with the spirit of hitch. It might have been the smokes that got him, though there's evidence that most throat cancers are caused by the HPV virus - the drinking and smoking just sets it off.

I've done both those things in my life in a bingey, part-time sort of way (the industrial-strength hangovers keep me in check). It would be a solemn business to face.

 

 

 

Can I get in the club? I have a good resume of drinking till sun comes up! pick me! pick me!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

frood and I'm insulted by the fact you keep pleading you are not one as if there's something wrong with boozing. It's really starting to undermine my confidence in my life choices.

 

Then my plan is finally coming to fruition, and I can begin construction of the Kerschmellikan Device.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
froodley

froodley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

frood and I'm insulted by the fact you keep pleading you are not one as if there's something wrong with boozing. It's really starting to undermine my confidence in my life choices.

 

Then my plan is finally coming to fruition, and I can begin construction of the Kerschmellikan Device.

Froodly your drunk again aren't you. Well you are again making up word. I can't find a dictionary that agrees with you, on your word choices. You make up words as bad as you state fact "horribly" Get a dictionary your give us the dictionary of froodly so we can keep up!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
froodley

froodley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

frood and I'm insulted by the fact you keep pleading you are not one as if there's something wrong with boozing. It's really starting to undermine my confidence in my life choices.

 

Then my plan is finally coming to fruition, and I can begin construction of the Kerschmellikan Device.

(laughs histerically) what the hell are you talking about?

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Since you

Sapient wrote:

 

Since you disagree with the definitions I presented we are left to believe you still think "atheism IS theism" ?  

You avoided this.  Par for the course.  Not able to admit your real flaw as I noted, you don't deserve the sympathy you whine for.

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
froodley

froodley wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

frood and I'm insulted by the fact you keep pleading you are not one as if there's something wrong with boozing. It's really starting to undermine my confidence in my life choices.

Then my plan is finally coming to fruition, and I can begin construction of the Kerschmellikan Device.

 

Dear, did you take your ritalin this morning?

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Google doesn't even know

Google doesn't even know what the device is.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Sapient

Sapient wrote:

Sapient wrote:

 

Since you disagree with the definitions I presented we are left to believe you still think "atheism IS theism" ?  

You avoided this.  Par for the course.  Not able to admit your real flaw as I noted, you don't deserve the sympathy you whine for.

 

No, I didn't. I've just been busy with other things.

Without getting enormously involved, what you all are describing as an "agnostic atheist" (or technically a "weak atheist" ) is what everyone else would describe as an "atheist-leaning agnostic." You are using technical vocabulary from the field of philosophy in a public setting, and using it incorrectly in my opinion.

You don't describe yourselves as "weak atheists," which would be technically correct. You use the generic "atheist" unless pushed, which to the public is a word with a strong and specific definition (matching what in philosophy is called a "strong atheist" ) that does not match your position. To the public, your position has a name, which is agnosticism.

 

(Agnosticism is technically "a-theism," but it is also "a-strong atheism", or "a-atheism" in the public parlance. It's "a-unicornism" and "a-a-unicornism" as well. Calling it some kind of atheism because it doesn't specifically assert theism is weird and (what's more) backward, except to a "qualified professional" who understands the derivation of the word. No one "a-" is large enough to encapsulate agnosticism as a concept.

Agnosticism doesn't have to be a qualified position. I don't have to have a leaning or a guess. I simply don't know. I can present compelling arguments for and against theism and its opposite (which is normally, by people outside of the cloister, referred to with some justification as atheism).

But even if I do have a leaning, I am still technically an agnostic because I don't specifically insist that one side is correct on logical grounds. And by the public understanding of the term, and there is a need for a term, I am not an atheist.

(In fact, the word 'atheism' is kind of a misnomer even in its technical sense, as someone once told me. What is normally meant by it in academic circles would be more accurately and technically called "a-historical monotheism." But good luck trying to get that to catch on.))

 

There is a reason the public has three separate categories and not, say, 15. (Deism, monism, polytheism, pantheism... panentheism... Satan worship... Satans worship... Church of Bob Dobbs...) Most people don't have a background in this stuff and are simply asking where along the spectrum from belief to disbelief you fall. The options along the spectrum are understood as a) belief for, b) unsure, and c) belief against. And these three positions have names, which are used widely and understood by all. Atheism may not be the correct term for option C, but it is the term.  I'm not sure there is a correct term, anyway. It's like betamax and vhs. "Get used to it."

So I say you are actually the cause of many of your own problems on this board, because you are misunderstanding that if you want to use technical vocabulary that overlaps with normal-life vocabulary, you have to make that clear. YOU're using the word wrong, from my point of view.

In my own case, for example, I was incensed by the notion of an "activist atheist" (while drunk) (because I don't like Jehova's witnesses bothering me). To the public, the choices are theist, agnostic, and atheist... and if you want to expand past those choices, you can't use their words to them and expect them to know what you mean.

It's like if I said that my weight was only 4 pounds, but I meant on the moon, and I didn't explain that. I just went around telling everyone that I weigh 4 pounds.

It's also like if I said "I'm a Christian, and everyone who isn't needs to hear what I have to say because they are wrong" (because I'm an "activist Christian" ), but what I actually have to say is that Jesus wore sandals and I like his hairdo.

I'm not "just" arguing semantics here. I'm arguing that you're misrepresenting your position, and being (at least in my case, QUITE) disparaging to any individual unlucky enough to take up their precious time arguing with what they justifiably assume are atheists as the word is normally used.

And I like tripe, if it's cooked right! Don't disparage tripe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripe

Anyways. I shouldn't be awake.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Just to expand somewhat, I

Just to expand somewhat, I also have issues with agnosticism as a position...  It's also a "weaksauce, childish claim," at another level of resolution.

It takes courage to find your way away from agnosticism.

It also takes humility, and a willingness to go beyond what you normally think of as reason.  Reason is always based on assumptions, and assumptions can be subtly flawed.  You have to be willing to look at your assumptions and imagine how they might be flawed.

 

I would describe my specific point of view as "awe-struck metaphysical open-mindedness."  But I will make no attempt to defend awe on logical grounds.

 

If you can look at a tree or a cloud, and say "that is a beautiful thing," I say that in your heart you are not even an agnostic, much less an atheist.

 

I don't actually endorse psychedelic use.  I have known too many people who lost their sanity and their way in life trying to "figure out" drugs, trying to be bigger than Jesus, charging in with enormous hubris... left-brained folk who need to figure things out exactly and can never admit the possibility that it is not possible to succeed.  If I feel really apologetic for this thread, apart from being a jerk somewhat intentionally to rile you up, it's because it comes across as an endorsement of that path.

 

I absolutely believe that you can learn everything worthwhile from psychedelics without ever unleashing those screeching vultures on your precious brain... if you just learn to imagine that the world is pretty.

 

And I definitely don't think that taking a bunch of drugs is going to make you a happier or wiser person.  I am 100% certain that it won't answer anything, no matter how long you try.  It will leave you fragile and mentally broken if not dead, broke, or in jail.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:Without

froodley wrote:

Without getting enormously involved, what you all are describing as an "agnostic atheist" (or technically a "weak atheist" ) is what everyone else would describe as an "atheist-leaning agnostic." You are using technical vocabulary from the field of philosophy in a public setting, and using it incorrectly in my opinion.

We're using vocabulary from the Oxford English Dictionary.  We are using the English that our founding fathers used.  I've never once heard the term atheist-leaning agnostic so don't pretend "everyone else" would describe us as such.  

 

Quote:
You don't describe yourselves as "weak atheists," which would be technically correct. You use the generic "atheist" unless pushed, which to the public is a word with a strong and specific definition (matching what in philosophy is called a "strong atheist" ) that does not match your position. To the public, your position has a name, which is agnosticism.

We don't describe ourselves as weak atheists because this isn't just a place for weak atheists, it's for all atheists.  It just so happens of the thousands of atheists I've met over the years I can only think of 10-20 that were strong atheists.  When you say public you are referring to misled Americans only, not the world population.  Nevertheless if you think "public" belief is what is of key importance then you are appealing to population which is a philosophical mistake.  The same mistake was made when people assumed the Sun orbited the Earth because everyone believed it... that didn't make it so.   Our website is not designed to reinforce dishonest or inaccurate arguments in religious debates, it's designed to correct all of them, including misled people who don't understand the terms (you in your first post).  

 

Quote:

 

So I say you are actually the cause of many of your own problems on this board, because you are misunderstanding that if you want to use technical vocabulary that overlaps with normal-life vocabulary, you have to make that clear. YOU're using the word wrong, from my point of view.

In my own case, for example, I was incensed by the notion of an "activist atheist" (while drunk) (because I don't like Jehova's witnesses bothering me). To the public, the choices are theist, agnostic, and atheist... and if you want to expand past those choices, you can't use their words to them and expect them to know what you mean.

It's not up to use a certain terminology to make it easier for someone to understand what we believe.  It's up to the person who will make assumptions about what we believe to not make those assumptions.  (you)

Furthermore had you done research on us, and dug deep enough, you would have found instances like this in our past.  You would've found conversations in which I told people that I purposefully set up situations in which we would be able to expose people who don't have appropriate critical thinking skills.  The definition of atheism is not the only one.  Originally I did this because I didn't want to align with atheists that thought illogically like many Christians.  In other words if you ever had a change of heart on this position, and you wanted to align with me on some sort of activist project, I would now know that I shouldn't.  I don't want to stand side by side with all atheists, just the ones that have a good head on their shoulders.  So when you tell me I'm the cause of my problems, you miss the mark again.  They are not problems, they are well calculated measures designed to expose poor thinkers, you were exposed, that was helpful to us.

 

You made other errors but I have to work double shifts on the weekends and don't have the time to pick each one apart, I'm heading to work.  Hopefully someone else will.

 

 

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:If you can

froodley wrote:


If you can look at a tree or a cloud, and say "that is a beautiful thing," I say that in your heart you are not even an agnostic, much less an atheist.

 

I make no bones about it - I have never been "into" philosophy and I don't intend to start at the age of almost 59.  If you must have a label for me - realistic pragmatist or pragmatic realist comes close.

But this particular statement always bugs me when chistians/islamists/wiccans/theists/polytheists/etc pull it out as a trump card.  It is beautiful because we grew up with it.  It is beautiful because we are familiar with it.  It is beautiful because it is mathematically symmetrical - expressing a fractal set or fibonacci series or golden mean in living architecture.  All of these symmetries are pleasing to our eyes because the symmetry implies and can predict functionality.

(See the TV series Faces narrated by John Cleese, particularly the episode on beauty.  There are also many other discussions and formal papers written by biologists on plant symmetries.)

If you were raised on Neptune, you would think that environment was beautiful.  There is nothing mystical about a lovely sunset.  I like the colors and cloud movement and blazing sun, I happen to enjoy it, and god/s/dess had nothing to do with either creating the sunset or influencing my enjoyment.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
My contribution to this

My contribution to this thread will be to direct froodley to another thread for reading.

Too often we treat new people as they wish to be treated, i.e. precious individual snowflakes.

froodley,

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you think you're special. I'm happy you think you're unique.

I just know it isn't true and trying to convince you it isn't makes for a frustrating interaction.

So while promising to check in on you later this evening, I leave you with another thread to occupy you. This one gives you a label to consider.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/19029

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:froodley wrote: If

cj wrote:

froodley wrote:

 

If you can look at a tree or a cloud, and say "that is a beautiful thing," I say that in your heart you are not even an agnostic, much less an atheist.

 

I make no bones about it - I have never been "into" philosophy and I don't intend to start at the age of almost 59.  If you must have a label for me - realistic pragmatist or pragmatic realist comes close.

But this particular statement always bugs me when chistians/islamists/wiccans/theists/polytheists/etc pull it out as a trump card.  It is beautiful because we grew up with it.  It is beautiful because we are familiar with it.  It is beautiful because it is mathematically symmetrical - expressing a fractal set or fibonacci series or golden mean in living architecture.  All of these symmetries are pleasing to our eyes because the symmetry implies and can predict functionality.

(See the TV series Faces narrated by John Cleese, particularly the episode on beauty.  There are also many other discussions and formal papers written by biologists on plant symmetries.)

If you were raised on Neptune, you would think that environment was beautiful.  There is nothing mystical about a lovely sunset.  I like the colors and cloud movement and blazing sun, I happen to enjoy it, and god/s/dess had nothing to do with either creating the sunset or influencing my enjoyment.

 

Like I said, I'm not going to make any attempt, at all, period, to defend my position on logical grounds.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, that sucks for you.  And you probably need to take a handful of mushrooms once or twice to fix your problem.  And you probably still would just fight with your left brain through the whole thing.   And then you'd turn into some kind of drug addict, trying and trying and trying to fight it all down into some kind of acceptable box with your left brain, and it would be all my fault.

I'm not, not, NOT having these asinine conversations again.  It's completely pointless.  You cannot convince me that blah blah blah flat science.  I find that explanation "simple."  And I'm not trying to convince you.  You cannot leverage any real, solid, inescapable proof.  So just stop.  Now.

 

I shouldn't have redirected the thread yet; I really don't care about all the crap you're going to throw at my second post - like, not even a little, seriously - like, I find it boring and I don't want to read it.  Let's just stick to the conversation about how I believe you're misusing the word atheism.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote:Don't get

darth_josh wrote:

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you think you're special. I'm happy you think you're unique.

I just know it isn't true and trying to convince you it isn't makes for a frustrating interaction.

 

When did I say I was special?  I am unique; everything is unique.  But I'm not particularly special.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient - You don't even

Sapient -

 

You don't even know what I'm talking about.  So you win.

You aren't even thinking about what I'm saying.

I don't have time for this anyway, and you're one of those people that I can tell not to bother with.  I find your responses thoughtless and self-indulgent.

 

Put it another way: Go ask 10,000 people what the word atheist means.  Then tell me if any of them were describing weak atheism.  The words mass and weight have different meanings in science, but they don't to the general public.  And you would have to accept the need to explain and qualify the distinction if you were trying to set up a public discussion about that subject.  And you would have no right to call anyone stupid for using the words the way they are normally used.  And you wouldn't have any right to expect people to start using the scientific meanings in their daily lives.

 

You're using a specific, technical vocabulary incorrectly in a public setting, and belittling people for not knowing that's what you were doing.  If you're going to describe yourself as an atheist, without including the qualifier, you may be setting up a trap, but you just wind up looking like a dick.  So some guy on the internet is misrepresenting his position in an attempt to call me out for using normal words as they're normally used instead of technical vocabulary when I address His Highness.  Oh no. I am distraught.

The position you're describing ALREADY HAS A NAME.  It has a well-known, public name that you are trying to replace with a word that ALSO is a well-known, public name for something else.  Just use that name, why not?

 


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
That said, if I had believed

That said, if I had believed that the position I hold was "correctly" called atheism, and I had set up an internet board and gotten in a million fights over it, and I was that entrenched and attached to that way of using the word, I would probably be just as bad as you. So no hard feelings, and look me up if you ever figure out what I'm saying.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Froodley, I will put this in

Froodley, I will put this in simple terms for you. 1. I don't believe in ANY god/dest. 2. I think that all form of worship have held back humanity, and distroyied the lives of too many people to mention. 3. Christian, Muslims, etc.. Have drove this world sideways for years, and should all be abolished. 4. I hate the thought of the people that claim to be Christians tring to control my thoughts and my life. Now you can word it however it make you feel comfortable, but I am an Atheist.... You have tried to make up words with more letters than your IQ but that doesn't impress me. If you want to debate a subject matter with principle, then go for it. I don't think anyone want you to try and tell them that they have labled themselves incorrectly. Now bring your subject to a close or make a point with relevance!

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I've never

Sapient wrote:
I've never once heard the term atheist-leaning agnostic so don't pretend "everyone else" would describe us as such. 

 

Put it another way: Most people would understand what I meant if I said "atheist-leaning agnostic."  They would not understand what I meant if I described agnosticism as atheism, which is what you're doing.

 

Sapient wrote:

We don't describe ourselves as weak atheists because this isn't just a place for weak atheists, it's for all atheists.

What I'm getting at is that the term weak atheism is just a subset of agnostic belief and doesn't actually fit into the category of atheism.

Quote:
  The same mistake was made when people assumed the Sun orbited the Earth because everyone believed it... that didn't make it so.

I disagree.  That was a question of fact.  This is a question of nomenclature.  Atheism is "the" word for strong atheism, and that's not plausibly going to change.  Because there is no need for the distinction, except perhaps in philosophical circles.  So people will continue to assume, when you say you're an atheist, that you're a strong atheist.

What would you assume if I said I was a Christian?  A muslim?  A jew?  Don't even try to say "nothing" after calling me an idiot for disagreeing with you; it will ring hollow.  Those terms apply to some specific set of beliefs.  If I want to qualify it beyond the obvious - that Jesus was God incarnate - I have to instead qualify what I'm calling myself.  That's MY responsibility, not everyone else in the entire world's towards me.

Quote:
It's not up to use a certain terminology to make it easier for someone to understand what we believe.

So you are not trying to communicate effectively with the public about your beliefs?

Quote:
It's up to the person who will make assumptions about what we believe to not make those assumptions.  (you)

Tough luck.  You can wish all day that calling yourself an atheist didn't connote that you were a strong atheist.  But it does, and it will.

 

Quote:
They are not problems, they are well calculated measures designed to expose poor thinkers, you were exposed, that was helpful to us.

You really need to read a book about grammar.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson

jimmy.williamson wrote:

Froodley, I will put this in simple terms for you. 1. I don't believe in ANY god/dest. 2. I think that all form of worship have held back humanity, and distroyied the lives of too many people to mention. 3. Christian, Muslims, etc.. Have drove this world sideways for years, and should all be abolished. 4. I hate the thought of the people that claim to be Christians tring to control my thoughts and my life. Now you can word it however it make you feel comfortable, but I am an Atheist.... You have tried to make up words with more letters than your IQ but that doesn't impress me. If you want to debate a subject matter with principle, then go for it. I don't think anyone want you to try and tell them that they have labled themselves incorrectly. Now bring your subject to a close or make a point with relevance!

 

1 - Then you're right, you ARE an atheist.  You're not describing agnosticism.  You're describing atheism.

 

Points 2-4 are not atheist or agnostic.  They're criticisms of the historical monotheistic religions.  They're fairly stock points of view for many people - atheist, agnostic, and theist.

Quote:
I don't think anyone want you to try and tell them that they have labled themselves incorrectly.

Tough noogies said the kaboogies, as my mom used to say.  That's exactly what I'm doing.   If you're not a strong atheist, you should normally be using the term agnostic, because that's what the word agnostic implies to everyone else.  If you are a strong atheist, you should normally be using the term atheist.

 

You may not find this subject to have substance, but I find logical arguments about whether there is or isn't a god to lack substance, and a question of nomenclature and strategy to be much more interesting.

 


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
This is the old thing about

This is the old thing about "ah"-theism and "Ay"-theism being two completely different things, like "big-C" Communism and "little-c" communism.

 

When you use the word atheism, unless you qualify what you're saying, that word is Ay-theism to the public, just like communism is Communism to the public.  You're being rude and assuming other people are as involved and interested in your pet subject as you are.  And there's a word for what you actually mean.  So just use it.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:Like I said,

froodley wrote:


Like I said, I'm not going to make any attempt, at all, period, to defend my position on logical grounds.  If you don't know what I'm talking about, that sucks for you.  And you probably need to take a handful of mushrooms once or twice to fix your problem.  And you probably still would just fight with your left brain through the whole thing.   And then you'd turn into some kind of drug addict, trying and trying and trying to fight it all down into some kind of acceptable box with your left brain, and it would be all my fault.

I'm not, not, NOT having these asinine conversations again.  It's completely pointless.  You cannot convince me that blah blah blah flat science.  I find that explanation "simple."  And I'm not trying to convince you.  You cannot leverage any real, solid, inescapable proof.  So just stop.  Now.

 

I shouldn't have redirected the thread yet; I really don't care about all the crap you're going to throw at my second post - like, not even a little, seriously - like, I find it boring and I don't want to read it.  Let's just stick to the conversation about how I believe you're misusing the word atheism.

 

Let's see, your god resides in a magic mushroom and you can't see the beauty around you without being stoned.  Got it.  Additionally, you would rather argue about what the meaning of "is" is.  Okay.

To me, god/s/dess does not exist in any form or lack of form, in any physical or non-physical universe/multiverse/dimension, singular or plural, natural or supernatural.  It's all random chance.  When you are dead, you are dead, forever and forever.  I guess that makes me a "strong" atheist, or an a-theist, or some such.  Have fun nitpicking with Brian if it turns you on. 

It is a gorgeous day here and I'm going outside.  Tah-tah.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
It's like if you used the

It's like if you used the word Marxist to describe your political beliefs, but what you actually meant is that you think Groucho Marx would have made a good president.

 

And you just assume that everyone else will know that, or read your position on the matter, and that the entire world is going to decide that that's what Marxism means on your say-so.  But that's not going to happen, because we outside of your web board have need for the word Marxism to describe something else, and we outnumber you.  Nomenclature is a democratic kind of a thing.

 

The word atheism is used to refer to strong atheism by the public, because there is no other word available.  Weak atheism is covered by agnosticism.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Let's see, your god

Quote:
Let's see, your god resides in a magic mushroom and you can't see the beauty around you without being stoned.  Got it.

Nope.  I didn't say that.  At all.  That's all you.

 

Quote:
Additionally, you would rather argue about what the meaning of "is" is.  Okay.

Again, all you.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Froodly, I'm going to

Froodly, I'm going to respond to this even though I probably shouldn't considering the mood I'm in today. I don't give a nats ass what your definition of atheism is or anyone elses for that matter. What I do know is that I'm definately atheist. No question about it.

I don't care about trees being beautiful or the sky because the world is an ugly place. Do you know why? Well maybe I'm in a bad mood, so be it. It's ugly to me because of christianity. Christians are horrible people. They are downright evil. Go look at some christian websites and look how they treat people and talk about people that they don't even know. They will argue another chtistian down about their faith because it's not there faith. Therefor it is not the right faith.

Maybe I'm avoiding your point all together but I really don't see where you have a point. This means this and that means that, who cares? The point is we don't believe in a god. Therefor I am atheist. I'm not going to argue this pointless crap with you because frankly it's gotten on my last nerve. Go do some shrooms and play your playstation or something. Point being you are wrong. Get a life and don't stress yourself out worrying about the way we see atheism. Everybody has different reason for it and really that's all that matters.

 

There Jimmy I fixed it, gah!

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote: It's like if

froodley wrote:

It's like if you used the word Marxist to describe your political beliefs, but what you actually meant is that you think Groucho Marx would have made a good president.

 

And you just assume that everyone else will know that, or read your position on the matter, and that the entire world is going to decide that that's what Marxism means on your say-so.  But that's not going to happen, because we outside of your web board have need for the word Marxism to describe something else, and we outnumber you.  Nomenclature is a democratic kind of a thing.

 

The word atheism is used to refer to strong atheism by the public, because there is no other word available.  Weak atheism is covered by agnosticism.

Funny you should use a communist polical statement when you say that your describing our views. Was that a pun? Are you tring to say that we are all commies in your eyes? Or did you think that you would be the only one here that would who that was? Atheism is Atheism. Not theism. We are Atheist and you are not as smart as you think you are. We are all still waiting to hear what kinda "device" you was refering to. So what is your position since you have come here to tell us what ours is, what is your? Christian?

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:So

jimmy.williamson wrote:
So what is your position since you have come here to tell us what ours is, what is your? Christian?

 

From what I can tell, he is one of the magic mushroom followers.  Magic shrooms see all, know all, and make pretty sunsets. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
HAHAHA

You say that what we are espousing is really agnosticism and that "the public" sees agnosticism that way. Sorry, but every lay person I have ever talked to that isn't versed in these issues considers agnosticism the belief in a 50-50 chance between gods or no gods. They are wrong, but according to you, froodley, this is just because "nomenclature is a democratic kind of a thing" so are the right just because there are more people ignorant of the proper usage of language? Or are those people still wrong because they don't use the right definition?

I am an atheist in that I have no faith in silly superstitious, supernatural fairy tales. Can I be sure of anything to 100% certainty? No, but I still don't believe in that garbage since I see no evidence to do so. Therefore I'm an atheist, period!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
*rolls eyes*

*rolls eyes*


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote:You say that

B166ER wrote:

You say that what we are espousing is really agnosticism and that "the public" sees agnosticism that way. Sorry, but every lay person I have ever talked to that isn't versed in these issues considers agnosticism the belief in a 50-50 chance between gods or no gods. They are wrong, but according to you, froodley, this is just because "nomenclature is a democratic kind of a thing" so are the right just because there are more people ignorant of the proper usage of language? Or are those people still wrong because they don't use the right definition.

 

That's closer to the technical meaning of agnosticism than the distance between weak atheism and strong atheism.  I don't see a problem with people representing my point of view that way.  It's not completely bass-ackwards.  Weak atheism is completely bass-ackwards to strong atheism.  It's just agnosticism.

When the issue is nomenclature, that guy is just being annoying.

 

If you don't have some plan to replace the public's word "atheism" with some other, better word, the public is not going to stop using atheism as the common word for belief that there is no god.

 

Quote:

I am an atheist in that I have no faith in silly superstitious, supernatural fairy tales. Can I be sure of anything to 100% certainty? No, but I still don't believe in that garbage since I see no evidence to do so. Therefore I'm an atheist, period!

 

No, that's an agnostic.  Strong atheists claim with 100% certainty that there is no god.  Agnostics recognize that there is no way to prove this.  You might have your suspicions, which I honestly believe most people would understand as being those of an atheist-leaning agnostic.  But you're still an agnostic.  Because you "don't know," which is what agnostic means.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:Weak atheism

froodley wrote:

Weak atheism is completely bass-ackwards to strong atheism.  It's just agnosticism.

First some humility:  I'll admit I was wrong about you being an idiot, you have been able to demonstrate that you aren't.  

With that out of the way, you should know that you still illustrate a comprehension problem.  It's statements like the one above that show you still don't understand.  Since this page "Am I Agnostic or Atheist?" was unable to help let me break it down one more time very simply.

 

Atheism is the absence of a BELIEF in a god.  It has NOTHING to do with agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the admission that one is without KNOWLEDGE of god.  It has NOTHING to do with atheism.

 

Atheism and theism are claims of BELIEF.

Agnosticism and gnosticism are claims of KNOWLEDGE.

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Anyways, live and let

Anyways, live and let live.  If you think you're an atheist, that's fine by me.   I'm just trying to argue that agnosticism and atheism are two different things, and that some of what I'm hearing is actually agnosticism.

 

I am sorry for being rude during my first batch of posts, but I will say that almost all of you have been very rude to me ever since, and without any excuse.  Because you don't like what I'm saying?  Uncool.  You don't really seem very open to other ways of looking at things.  And I really need to be more focused on other things in my life.  Signing off...


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Atheism is the

Sapient wrote:

Atheism is the absence of a BELIEF in a god.  It has NOTHING to do with agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the admission that one is without KNOWLEDGE of god.  It has NOTHING to do with atheism.

 

Atheism and theism are claims of BELIEF.

Agnosticism and gnosticism are claims of KNOWLEDGE.

 

Thank you for the apology.

 

I understand that distinction.  It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about Laughing out loud


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
You should just admit to

You should just admit to yourself that you had this entire argument so you could avoid using the word atheist to describe yourself.  I mean, good luck with your other endeavors.

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:You should

Sapient wrote:

You should just admit to yourself that you had this entire argument so you could avoid using the word atheist to describe yourself.  I mean, good luck with your other endeavors.

 

 

At some point, we are just going in circles about whether people mean weak or strong atheism by the truncated "atheism," which I suppose we'll have to leave up to the Rand Group.

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:Can I

jimmy.williamson wrote:

Can I get in the club? I have a good resume of drinking till sun comes up! pick me! pick me!

 

Sure, you can join.

 

If we get enough members with web cams, perhaps Brian will be good enough to open the stickam room for us one night and we can all get drunk together.

 

As the first order of business, the chair presents that our motto should be as follows:

 

"Everyone should believe in something.  I believe that I will have another drink."

 

If other members have a better idea, then feel free to suggest it or we can just move on to a vote tomorrow evening.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Wow. This went the opposite

Wow. This went the opposite way I was expecting.

Sorry, Brian, I wasn't able to keep as good of an eye as i had thought i would.

Busy night.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:Without

froodley wrote:
Without getting enormously involved, what you all are describing as an "agnostic atheist" (or technically a "weak atheist" )

Technically?

We are technically agnostic atheists and weak atheists.

froodley wrote:
You don't describe yourselves as "weak atheists," which would be technically correct. You use the generic "atheist" unless pushed, which to the public is a word with a strong and specific definition (matching what in philosophy is called a "strong atheist" ) that does not match your position. To the public, your position has a name, which is agnosticism.

I have no problem telling people that I am an agnostic, but when I do, I will try to tell them what I mean. I still prefer telling people I'm an atheist because it is technically the correct term, but again, I will try to tell them what I mean.

froodley wrote:
Calling it some kind of atheism because it doesn't specifically assert theism is weird

Weird? Theism is belief in God. Agnostic atheists don't believe in God. 

froodley wrote:
and (what's more) backward,

Backward?

froodley wrote:
except to a "qualified professional" who understands the derivation of the word.

In other words, the correct definition seems weird to ignorant people that don't know the correct definition. Only people who know and understand the correct definition don't think it's weird. Well, gee whiz, what a revelation.

I don't think this definition is nearly as rare as you imply anyways. As I said before, I know far more people who use my definition than yours. Most of the people in my university's Secular Student Union use my definition. The vast majority of non-theists that I see on the Internet use my definition. Many, if not most popular non-theists use my definition and virtually all of them are aware of it. Etc.

froodley wrote:
because you are misunderstanding that if you want to use technical vocabulary that overlaps with normal-life vocabulary, you have to make that clear.

I think it has been made fairly clear. The article "Am I Agnostic or Atheist?" is on linked on the left side of the site home page. We will tell people the correct definition as soon as they ask or if it's clear that they disagree with us on the definition. There aren't many ways to make it more clear. You want us to put "I don't define agnosticism and atheism the same way you do" as the subtitle under "The Rational Response Squad"?

Furthermore, if we used your definition, some people that usually use my definition would probably think they're being "misled." So, we really can't completely win.

froodley wrote:
YOU're using the word wrong, from my point of view.

You mean we're defining the word in a way that is less popular among the American public. It is technically the correct definition.

froodley wrote:
In my own case, for example, I was incensed by the notion of an "activist atheist" (while drunk) (because I don't like Jehova's witnesses bothering me)

Highlighting a really retarded thought that you had while drunk is not a sound argument.

froodley wrote:
Okay then, I'll just tell them what I mean.I'm arguing that you're misrepresenting your position, and being (at least in my case, QUITE) disparaging to any individual unlucky enough to take up their precious time arguing with what they justifiably assume are atheists as the word is normally used.

That is how it is normally used among the American public. I believe it is less common than our definition amongst philosophers and intellectuals. At the very least, informed people should be aware of our definition. As you already stated, it is technically the correct definition. If people are "misled" because they don't know what the correct definition is, assume an incorrect definition, and starting typing a drunk rant based on that incorrect definition without even trying to actually communicate with us, that is their own fault, not ours.

froodley wrote:
If you can look at a tree or a cloud, and say "that is a beautiful thing," I say that in your heart you are not even an agnostic, much less an atheist.

I'm going to pretend you didn't type this.

froodley wrote:
The words mass and weight have different meanings in science, but they don't to the general public.  And you would have to accept the need to explain and qualify the distinction if you were trying to set up a public discussion about that subject.  And you would have no right to call anyone stupid for using the words the way they are normally used.  And you wouldn't have any right to expect people to start using the scientific meanings in their daily lives.

We have explained and qualified what we mean. It is linked from our main page, more than once. We've explained to you. We didn't call you stupid just because you defined these words different than us. Your posts on the first page are stupid regardless. And no, people don't have to define these words the way we define them in their daily lives.

Since you've decided to use this analogy, let me throw this hypothetical situation back at you. If someone goes into an online physics forum and attempts to discuss quantum mechanics, but uses incorrect terminology, was he misled by the members of that forum or was he simply uninformed? Do the people on the physics forum need to explain the difference between mass and weight every second post just in case some lurking redneck is going to misunderstand them? That's ridiculous.

froodley wrote:
I'm just trying to argue that agnosticism and atheism are two different things, and that some of what I'm hearing is actually agnosticism.

Yes, by your definitions of those terms. You define them as mutually exclusive. We don't.

There is no dichotomy between "I don't know" and being certain. On many topics, one must hold to claims probabilistically. For me, the existence of a God can run from probable (deistic God) to cannot exist for all practical purposes (Abrahamic Gods). But, I am never 100% certain. This is why we make assertions that you would categorize as agnosticism and assertions that you would categorize as atheism.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Club

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

Can I get in the club? I have a good resume of drinking till sun comes up! pick me! pick me!

 

Sure, you can join.

 

If we get enough members with web cams, perhaps Brian will be good enough to open the stickam room for us one night and we can all get drunk together.

 

As the first order of business, the chair presents that our motto should be as follows:

 

"Everyone should believe in something.  I believe that I will have another drink."

 

If other members have a better idea, then feel free to suggest it or we can just move on to a vote tomorrow evening.

What will our take on drugs be? Legal ones used in a strictly supervised setting of course. "wink wink"

"You know I think drugs have done some good things for us, I really do. If you don't believe drugs have done good things for us do me a favor, go home tonight and take all your albums,all your tapes, and all your Cd's and burn them. Cause you know all those musician that have made all that great music that's enhanced your life throughout the years. RRRReal fucking high on drugs." Bill Hicks

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:What

jimmy.williamson wrote:
What will our take on drugs be? Legal ones used in a strictly supervised setting of course. "wink wink"

 

Well, my take on drugs borrows from the last bit of woo that I was involved in:

 

Aleister Crowley wrote:
Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.

 

That much being said, Crowley was noted for going on at great length about what he meant by that. In a nutshell: If you fuck up your life by doing drugs, you have nobody but your self to blame for the situation.

 

It should be noted that the status of a specific drug under the law has no actual bearing on people fucking up their lives. People get themselves totally fucked on booze and that is not illegal. Hell's bells, people get fucker on compulsive gambling and yet governments think that lotteries are a great way to make money.

 

Let me look at that last one a bit further. If you fuck up your life on scratch off tickets, is this a problem for the store owners who sell the things knowing full well that a good chunk of the money they make comes from people who buy the things then buying other stuff while they are there?

 

Seriously though, my take on drugs is going to be that if you get yourself good and fucked, well then you are fucked. Leave the rest of us alone.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
If done in moderation and

If done in moderation and with fair intententions then I don't see the problem with a little bit.
And as you stated booze are drugs just legal ones.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
jimmy.williamson wrote:What

jimmy.williamson wrote:

What will our take on drugs be? Legal ones used in a strictly supervised setting of course. "wink wink"

You mean like the way Michael Jackson died?

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle -  I'll have

butterbattle -

 

I'll have to say, that was pretty well argued.  I'm still convinced I have a point, but I really don't feel like I'm going to be able to make it any more clearly than I already have.  I hope you will think about what I've tried to say as time goes on.

 

butterbattle wrote:

We are technically agnostic atheists and weak atheists.

You are also technically "just" agnostics.  An agnostic doesn't have any reason to assert that they are a-theist.  The list of things in which an agnostic has no specific belief is extremely long, and strong atheism is also on that list.

 

Quote:

 

froodley wrote:
Calling it some kind of atheism because it doesn't specifically assert theism is weird

Weird? Theism is belief in God. Agnostic atheists don't believe in God. 

froodley wrote:
and (what's more) backward,

Backward?

Refer to my previous statement.  It's weird and backward because what you're saying is included in the definition of agnostic.  It's as though you'd set up a whole web site about how you don't believe in unicorns, necessarily, but if you see one you'll change your mind.  Well, so?

 

Quote:

In other words, the correct definition seems weird to ignorant people that don't know the correct definition. Only people who know and understand the correct definition don't think it's weird. Well, gee whiz, what a revelation.

No, not exactly.  It's that the word atheism _has a common definition_, and your position fits much better into another word with a common definition.  Your definition is only the 'correct' one from a strict linguistic perspective.

Quote:
I don't think this definition is nearly as rare as you imply anyways. As I said before, I know far more people who use my definition than yours. Most of the people in my university's Secular Student Union use my definition. The vast majority of non-theists that I see on the Internet use my definition. Many, if not most popular non-theists use my definition and virtually all of them are aware of it. Etc.

So, in other words, the sort of people who would obviously know the technical definition know the technical definition?  What a revalation Eye-wink  You're dodging my real point.

 

When you imagine "ignorant" people, do you perhaps see some kind of redneck stereotype, a knuckle-dragger who doesn't know left from right?

 

What I'm saying is:  your position would be both commonly and technically described as agnosticism.  You wouldn't be misleading anyone to describe it as such.  You're not "saying anything" by describing yourself as an agnostic atheist that isn't already included in the word agnostic.  Describing yourself as an atheist is misleading to all sorts of perfectly intelligent and sane people who understand the word atheist to refer to the strong atheist position, so you're basically picking a fight.  But I suppose that's your choice.  I just think it's kind of low.  Most of these people who post here wouldn't see any reason to mess with "just" agnostics.

 

Quote:
You want us to put "I don't define agnosticism and atheism the same way you do" as the subtitle under "The Rational Response Squad"?

Yes, kind of.

 

Quote:
Furthermore, if we used your definition, some people that usually use my definition would probably think they're being "misled." So, we really can't completely win.

I don't think if you described yourself as an agnostic, and then further as an atheist-leaning agnostic, that anyone at all would feel misled by that.

 

Quote:

You mean we're defining the word in a way that is less popular among the American public. It is technically the correct definition.

From my perspective, I still am going to assert that this is using it WRONG.  But I really don't know that you're going to understand why, no matter how I say it.

 

Quote:
Highlighting a really retarded thought that you had while drunk is not a sound argument.

I don't think it's a retarded thought.  It's basically the thought behind this entire web site, isn't it?  I was being an "activist agnostic," wasn't I?  It's not something I normally bother myself with, but it's not retarded.  Retarded is 2 + 7 = 4.

 

 

Quote:
That is how it is normally used among the American public. I believe it is less common than our definition amongst philosophers and intellectuals. At the very least, informed people should be aware of our definition. As you already stated, it is technically the correct definition. If people are "misled" because they don't know what the correct definition is, assume an incorrect definition, and starting typing a drunk rant based on that incorrect definition without even trying to actually communicate with us, that is their own fault, not ours.

Point taken.  But I say perhaps you made the same mistake, with me.  I don't think you've understood what I've said in more than a very superficial way.

 

Quote:
froodley wrote:
If you can look at a tree or a cloud, and say "that is a beautiful thing," I say that in your heart you are not even an agnostic, much less an atheist.

I'm going to pretend you didn't type this.

I'm going to pretend you didn't type that.

 

Quote:
Your posts on the first page are stupid regardless

I think they were rude, but not stupid.  I think you're much too quick to dismiss my point of view as beneath you and the only way I can get you to engage what I'm saying at all is to waste large amounts of my very-limited time spelling it out academic-style.

 

Quote:
Since you've decided to use this analogy, let me throw this hypothetical situation back at you. If someone goes into an online physics forum and attempts to discuss quantum mechanics, but uses incorrect terminology, was he misled by the members of that forum or was he simply uninformed? Do the people on the physics forum need to explain the difference between mass and weight every second post just in case some lurking redneck is going to misunderstand them? That's ridiculous.

I don't think the analogy holds up all the way to there.  I think in this case, the subject isn't a technical matter for experts only, but a matter on which absolutely everyone has an opinion and a point of view.  So you're going to have a lot of people come through using the common definition (which is what I assumed, in many cases correctly, is what you all would be doing).  A lot, lot, lot.  If you want to educate them, that's fine, but you definitely can't be as rude to them as you've been to me.  You should have no reasonable expectation that the average new person here will understand the word that way.

Also, the paper you link to, "Am I an agnostic or an atheist?", is actually a position paper.  It's not just a page with the technical meanings of the words.  It's an assertion , and a fairly strong one, with which I strongly disagree.  I don't believe it would be correct to classify all agnostics as atheists; I think that would obscure a great deal of what being an agnostic means.

If you had pointed me to a dictionary-type page, I would have understood what you were saying, and I would have had no room to disagree. Except on what I will describe as "political" grounds.  Maybe "non-antisocial" would be more descriptive.

 

Quote:
Yes, by your definitions of those terms. You define them as mutually exclusive. We don't.

I think it's worth considering that you should. Everyone necessarily believes everything that they know.  So all gnostic statements are belief statements.  All agnostic belief statements are statements of faith.  So there is a spectrum of statements of belief, with gnosis boxing out everything in the middle of what you believe, and agnosis serving as a border between statements of faith (like strong atheism and theism) and statements based on specific knowledge.

 

Quote:
There is no dichotomy between "I don't know" and being certain. On many topics, one must hold to claims probabilistically. For me, the existence of a God can run from probable (deistic God) to cannot exist for all practical purposes (Abrahamic Gods). But, I am never 100% certain. This is why we make assertions that you would categorize as agnosticism and assertions that you would categorize as atheism.

I understand what you mean, but to me this is where you say "I'm an atheist-leaning [or deist-leaning] agnostic."  That contains the information that this is only a probabilistic claim and not an assertion of knowledge.


jimmy.williamson
Superfan
jimmy.williamson's picture
Posts: 249
Joined: 2010-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Sapient

Sapient wrote:

jimmy.williamson wrote:

What will our take on drugs be? Legal ones used in a strictly supervised setting of course. "wink wink"

You mean like the way Michael Jackson died?

 

I said in moderation. He didn't use moderation.

Throughout human history as our species has faced the frighten terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are and where we are going; it has been the authority (the political, the religious, and the educational authorities) who have attempted to comfort us. By giving us order, rules, and regulation. Informing or forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question these authorities. THINK FOR YOURSELF…


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:I think

froodley wrote:

I think you're much too quick to dismiss my point of view as beneath you and the only way I can get you to engage what I'm saying at all is to waste large amounts of my very-limited time spelling it out academic-style.

It's time well spent if you're able to avoid using the word atheist to describe yourself.  

You don't need to admit it to me, but at least be honest with yourself.  And one last time... at least 90% (if not 99%) of atheists use the definitions we provided.  It's people who call themselves "agnostic" without recognizing they are atheist that don't typically know the correct definition.  Oh shit, that's you!

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:It's time well

Sapient wrote:

It's time well spent if you're able to avoid using the word atheist to describe yourself.  

You don't need to admit it to me, but at least be honest with yourself.  And one last time... at least 90% (if not 99%) of atheists use the definitions we provided.  It's people who call themselves "agnostic" without recognizing they are atheist that don't typically know the correct definition.  Oh shit, that's you!

 

 

The key part there is "OF ATHEISTS."  You're the one running an activist web site.  You should be assuming that the people who come to the site DON'T know the technical definition, and pointing all new users to a dictionary page as part of the sign-up.

 

You're still not absorbing what I'm saying, at any rate.  Agnostics are not ""just" atheists, and they aren't going to start describing themselves as such.  They are also a-atheists, a-a-atheists (skip the AA jokes), and a-a-a-atheists.  Agnosticism is not a subset of atheism.  It's a completely different position.  It implies weak atheism in the same way that it implies weak a-unicornism.  Atheism (strong OR weak) is not the correct term for what agnostics believe.

 

If I describe my point of view as atheist, I am NOT including the information that I am a-deist, a-strong-atheist, a-flying-spaghetti-monsterist, a-polytheist, etc.  But if I describe my point of view as agnostic, I am catching all of those things.  It's the correct term for what I believe, all by itself.  Or at least what I purport to believe to left-brained people. Laughing out loud


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
this is the song that never

this is the song that never ends... it keeps on going and going my friends...


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:The key part

froodley wrote:

The key part there is "OF ATHEISTS."  You're the one running an activist web site.  You should be assuming that the people who come to the site DON'T know the technical definition, and pointing all new users to a dictionary page as part of the sign-up.

Other than menu items there are two links on the left hand site of the site on every page:

 

Kent Hovind

Am I Agnostic or Atheist?

 

 

 

Quote:
Atheism (strong OR weak) is not the correct term for what agnostics believe.

You're wrong.  YOU STILL ARE NOT COMPREHENDING.

Atheism and theism are the ONLY terms for what agnostics BELIEVE.  Agnostic is the term for what agnostics claim to KNOW.

 

 

Quote:
But if I describe my point of view as agnostic, I am catching all of those things.  It's the correct term for what I believe, all by itself.  Or at least what I purport to believe to left-brained people. Laughing out loud

You still are not understanding the very simply etymology. Agnostic is not the correct term for what you BELIEVE it's the correct term for what you claim to KNOW.  

 

The gnosis root refers to knowledge, not belief.  

 

You're as stubborn and brainwashed as the fundy Christians.  Ironic that you started this thread with the same insult flung at us, and it happens to pertain to you.

Just bow out.  I don't need to hear it, but you should at least start being honest with yourself.

 

 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Other than

Sapient wrote:

 

Other than menu items there are two links on the left hand site of the site on every page:

 

Quote:
Atheism and theism are the ONLY terms for what agnostics BELIEVE.  Agnostic is the term for what agnostics claim to KNOW.

I disagree.  I won't claim to believe, under normal circumstances, anything I don't know.  Under special circumstances, with people who aren't so exclusively left-brained, I will discuss a leaning or a faith statement, but normally I don't claim to have any such leaning.  Agnostic is the correct term for what I believe, at least so far as I'm willing to admit under normal circumstances.  "I believe I don't know."  That's what I believe.  I don't believe that theists are wrong, or that atheists are wrong.  My belief statement is that I don't believe I know the answer.

 

Quote:
You're as stubborn and brainwashed as the fundy Christians.  Ironic that you started this thread with the same insult flung at us, at it happens to pertain to you.

Just bow out.  I don't need to hear it, but you should at least start being honest with yourself.

 

All I hear from that is, "I'm frustrated because you won't accept my point of view."

Would there be some harm in having a dictionary page, to get everyone on the site using the same definitions?  Are you "just being stubborn" right now?

 


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
froodley wrote:Would there

froodley wrote:

Would there be some harm in having a dictionary page, to get everyone on the site using the same definitions?  Are you "just being stubborn" right now?

No, that's why it's been on the left side of the page in the menu for several years now.

Am I Agnostic or Atheist?

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


froodley
Posts: 66
Joined: 2010-08-22
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:froodley

Sapient wrote:

froodley wrote:

Would there be some harm in having a dictionary page, to get everyone on the site using the same definitions?  Are you "just being stubborn" right now?

No, that's why it's been on the left side of the page in the menu for several years now.

Am I Agnostic or Atheist?

 

As I mentioned, that's not what that page is.  That page is a position paper.  It's a set of statements, by you, that someone could legitimately agree or disagree with.

 

What I am asking for is an actual dictionary page.