“I said I'll tolerate someones RIGHT to have a batshit crazy idea, just like I would tolerate someones RIGHT to have a not so batshit crazy idea. I'm not one for lawmaking that prevents people from thinking a certain way and as long as I don’t lobby or vote otherwise, I don’t see how I’m being a hypocrite.”

Claiming to tolerate someone's right...than Insulting someone's choices in life isn't tolerance, however, it is hypocrisy. Maybe you need to revisit what you think?

“Well shit, I'm sorry if I place that much value on respecting something that it means it has to meet some sort of standard before I respect it, maybe I should just respect everything out of hand.”
Yeah, you probably should lest you want to look more a bigot.

“And does this mean you hold a negative stereotype of atheists? Or at least checklist people based on that negative stereotype?”
Does this mean you need ask such flawed questions?

“Well if a religious person does 'barge around like a bull in a china store with their baseless beliefs', I would call them an idiot of a religious nature, or Religiot, it was fun and I did specify who I was talking about, be it with an analogy, I still did, so it was not much of a generalisation. “
Actually it was a generlisation, but hey, maybe next time you'll get it right. Calling people names isn't the proper thing to do, and horrible form of argument. Tsk Tsk.

“Credibility in what sense? I mean, I think it's more sensible, more logical, more rational to not take the positive belief on something when there no clear evidence to back it up, I would say that's a more credible thing to do, and then a priest would try Pascal’s wager and claim god belief would be the proper stance... Is credibility an objective property of something?”

What sense? That both atheism and religious beliefs have no evidence to support either side. Semantically, logically, they are both gifted with the same level of credibility. Again, what you think, what you feel and your general opinion does not supersede the fact that they are on that level. Feel free to think otherwise, but it doesn't change the objective truth. You also aren't one to claim what a priest would or wouldn't do, nor anyone else.

“You still do have a theistic and gnostic stance on god, just like you have a belief and gnostic stance in relation to the Martian orbital teapot, the FSM, IPU, fairies, dragons, kittens and leprechauns and any other proposed entity. (All that fence sitting must have lodged the tip of a picket up your arse… ok, that comment was just for shits and giggles, I could not resist. )”
All of your paltry examples are fallacious. Exemplar, the FSM argument is a absurd co-op. In a cosmological argument on the origin of God, If someone seriously argued that a immaculate pasta dish was created during the singularity which spawned time-space and his noodlely appendages reached throughout a branched time system it would hold no steam. Where as with God, that argument would be far more credible. God, unlike a pasta dish, can be defined more broadly. A pasta dish can't be a infinite source of quantum energy floating through space, however, God could.

It's sad you have to resort to such petty invective against me, real mature.

“*coughs* “Your entire statement is based off a assumption you can't* prove” To clarify, I said that because I felt I would just be repeating sentiments already mentioned.”

Actually that was a question, not a statement. You're not really good at this whole “logics” thang' are ya'? Secondly, I most certainly did validate my opinion and back up my claims....Here.

“*I should also point out that I could of (dis)proven my statement by asking you, just like you could of too, I guess we are guilty of the same crime, I hope yours was just as much a lapse in concentration as mine. “
No, I don't have to disprove your statements. It's called the burden of proof, and it was rested on your shoulders, not mine. Secondly you can't validate your assumptions because that would require you to ask me for clarification on my beliefs or lack of, which you will not get. My views are extraneous in this conversation.

Claiming to tolerate someone's right...than Insulting someone's choices in life isn't tolerance, however, it is hypocrisy. Maybe you need to revisit what you think?

I will tolerate someone’s right, as I said, I will not attempt to impede on their life if it's on their own dime, on their own time and infringing on others. However I, and it ay be probable that you too, will not tolerate some things and tolerate others. I hold a free and private viewpoint and my main beef with religions is when they cause people to infringe on others.

Yeah, you probably should lest you want to look more a bigot.

So you would respect proponents of Mandatory Paedophilia For Disabled children out of hand? How about killing entire races of people based on the way they think or look? How about denying people equal rights because they do not agree with you? Should they get respect automatically?
I don't know what floats your boat, but respecting something is an action I don't tend to take likely, and as a result I will hold things to standards.

Does this mean you need ask such flawed questions?
I do have a rather unsatisfactory answer to this, but I asked first.

Actually it was a generlisation, but hey, maybe next time you'll get it right. Calling people names isn't the proper thing to do, and horrible form of argument. Tsk Tsk.

You take it as a generalisation then, maybe I should of clarified what I meant further. It was hardly an argument either, more of a rant.

What sense? That both atheism and religious beliefs have no evidence to support either side. Semantically, logically, they are both gifted with the same level of credibility. Again, what you think, what you feel and your general opinion does not supersede the fact that they are on that level. Feel free to think otherwise, but it doesn't change the objective truth.

You know, I find it funny how you mention atheistic beliefs as plural, when in fact there is none, atheism is a non-belief, it is a lack of belief. It is not a religion. It is not a belief system.
"We can't say that it is, we have no evidence for it, so we wont say that it is"
"We can't say that it is, we have no evidence for it, so we will say that it is"
Until there is proper evidence presented for the positive statement, it seems that it would be better to not claim it to be true. That is why I am without theism, it lacks the evidence to give it any credibility to me, I am thus forced to revert to the default position. Without theism is atheism.
I don’t recall agnosticism being a belief structure either. I thought it was a stance that we do not (or can not) have evidence either way of this god being. Beyond that the beliefs of a person would probably be whatever they feel like.


All of your paltry examples are fallacious. Exemplar, the FSM argument is a absurd co-op. In a cosmological argument on the origin of God, If someone seriously argued that a immaculate pasta dish was created during the singularity which spawned time-space and his noodlely appendages reached throughout a branched time system it would hold no steam. Where as with God, that argument would be far more credible. God, unlike a pasta dish, can be defined more broadly. A pasta dish can't be a infinite source of quantum energy floating through space, however, God could.

I don’t think I was offering any alternatives to a creator or a god here, I was merely stating that people will have a belief and gnostic stance in regards to the entities proposed, I included kitten as an example of something likely to have both a positive belief and gnostic stance by people. I believe that kittens exist, and I know we have evidence for them. I can even link you to a photographer who specialises in kittens (it’s very cute). It also helps that they are more clearly defined than other proposed entities.
Oh, an infinite source of quantum energy floating through space is an infinite source of quantum energy floating through space, it’s kind of pointing out another problem with the idea of a god existing, it appears to be nothing more than a title to be placed upon anything anyone pleases.

No, I don't have to disprove your statements. It's called the burden of proof, and it was rested on your shoulders, not mine. Secondly you can't validate your assumptions because that would require you to ask me for clarification on my beliefs or lack of, which you will not get. My views are extraneous in this conversation.

Emm, dude? Lets read this again “I could of (dis)proven my statement by asking you” Now, I don’t see here where I said you have to disprove my statement, I said that I could of (dis)prove my own statement by checking what I had said. The best source to do that would have been, gee golly, you! Now, if you are not willing to tell me, I could track down your friends and family and try to see what I can get from a different source, albeit more unreliable than asking the person themselves, however if you don’t want to tell for whatever reason, then fine, keep it locked up with all your other dark secrets. I also worded it “(dis)prove” because I had to allow for the fact that the response I got could of done either. Anyway I did say that it was a mistake and I should have worded it as my impression of you.