It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atheism & Theism: Menaces to Society

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
So from what i've gathered here.

Most people are claiming that being agnostic is the true way forward?


By their fruits you shall know them. Both very-right-wing-religious nations and very-left-wing-atheist nations have caused the most harm to society.

What harm has agnosticism caused? None. Among 1000000s of other thought-systems that are harmless.

Harmlessness then, can easily be viewed as an indicator of truth.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Skyfloating]




posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Sky floating, have you any opinions on the idea of sweden being a majoritively 'atheistic' country.

I understand you used North Korea in your debate, but without using a reflection of a country that is not oppressed then we cannot compare.



Intersting point. My opinion only:

Swedens brand of both atheism and liberalism is moderate. Moderation is universally a path to health, happiness and success.

North Korea represents the extreme-variation mentioned in the OP.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 


Nice read.

There are many thousands of thought-systems one could subscribe to. Because of the widespread popularity of religion in past centuries, theism and a-theism have emerged as the best advertised and most known. But just because they are the most known does not mean that they are best capable of guiding humanity into the 21st Century.

As you correctly state, neither the "everything exists by chance and nothing matters" nor the "only Jesus/Allah matters" has anything to do with peoples day-to-day experiential reality.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 

reply to post by mr-lizard
 


Actually, no you didn't. I spoke to him after I broached the subject to verify my suspisions.
I would be happy to post the u2u's if he doesn't mind. Any other blatantly contradictory to your stance lies you wish to try? And it of course begs the question, if you are willing to so blatantly lie about this one little thing when called on it, what else are you?

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


No. Not being militant in your beliefs is the way forward. You know that whole tollerance thing? Though agnosticism does have a rather strong argument for it once once one pushes past the BS.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You claim that the spiritual/religious look at the Universe saying "God made it" and the atheist looks at the Universe without a position either way. But the atheist does have a position and thats "God did not make it". It is the Agnostic who is truly open position-wise.


Again, you're generalizing.
The word atheist means lacking a belief in God. No specific world view is required to be an atheist. People who call themselves agnostic also fall under the category of atheism simply because they aren't theists.
You have to either be an atheist or a theist, that is you either believe in a god or you don't believe in a god (not to be confused with making a claim that deities don't exist).
What you're really against isn't atheism in general, but 'strong atheism', that is the belief that there is no god rather than a simple lack of belief in a god.
The two may sound similar, but they are very very different.
One claims to know what it can't, while the other simply doesn't subscribe to any theistic magazine.


en.wikipedia.org...



Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]






Every person has a different version of reality. In this thread I do not care about fringe-opinions such as the previously posted "communist christianity" or your "spiritual atheism" but about that which is promoted to the majority. Why? Because its the majority that shapes society.


Well from what I've seen, the majority of atheists don't claim to know that a god doesn't exist (are you interested in that majority?). Even Richard Dawkins doesn't do so. And yet we are presented all the time as claiming to know the impossible, and therefore no different than theists, which is often far from the truth.




Originally posted by Skyfloating


but without theism, atheism would not cease to be, it would, in fact, be the only thing left.


Its a sad fact that much of modern academia actually believes this nonsense to be true. The very term a-theism is based upon the word theism. This is blatant. Where no theism exists, no a-theism exists either.
Where no concept of hot exists, no cold exists either.


Again you seem to be misunderstanding what atheism is.
Atheism: a lack of belief in a deity
So if theism didn't exist, you still would have no belief in a deity, in which case you would be an atheist. The word may not exist to describe it in such a reality, but the meaning would be the same.
We're all born atheists, because we're all born without a belief in god. You can't believe what you don't know.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Again, you are obfuscating and dead wrong. Here is the dictionary definition for atheist as I think we have been over before.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

SOURCE:Atheism Definition @ Merriam-Webster.com


Well from what I've seen, the majority of atheists don't claim to know that a god doesn't exist (are you interested in that majority?). Even Richard Dawkins doesn't do so. And yet we are presented all the time as claiming to know the impossible, and therefore no different than theists, which is often far from the truth.


You don't pay much attention to your peers do you particularly on this forum? And do I need to point out of the meaning of the word delusion?


Again you seem to be misunderstanding what atheism is.
Atheism: a lack of belief in a deity
So if theism didn't exist, you still would have no belief in a deity, in which case you would be an atheist. The word may not exist to describe it in such a reality, but the meaning would be the same.
We're all born atheists, because we're all born without a belief in god. You can't believe what you don't know.


And yet you cannot find the definition you so hold to via any other source. Ho hum.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Again, you are obfuscating and dead wrong. Here is the dictionary definition for atheist as I think we have been over before.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity



Nope I'm not 'dead wrong'.
If you had clicked that link I gave above and clicked the source for the statement "In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]"

You would have read this:




^ religioustolerance.org's short article on Definitions of the term "Atheism" suggests that there is no consensus on the defintion of the term. Simon Blackburn summarizes the situation in The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none." Most dictionaries (see the OneLook query for "atheism") first list one of the more narrow definitions.


What you fail to understand about definitions is that a word may have several, some more specific than others.
While most dictionaries DO include the more narrow definition you refer to, many also refer to the broader definition.
Just because there is a more specific definition does not magically dismiss the broader definition.

And that, sir, is checkmate.
You can argue against this, but you will be arguing against thin air, because I've proven this fact to you again and again.

I'm not required to do your research, you do it yourself.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Well from what I've seen, the majority of atheists don't claim to know that a god doesn't exist (are you interested in that majority?). Even Richard Dawkins doesn't do so. And yet we are presented all the time as claiming to know the impossible, and therefore no different than theists, which is often far from the truth.


You don't pay much attention to your peers do you particularly on this forum? And do I need to point out of the meaning of the word delusion?


I do pay attention, I'm sure far more than you do, and even many extreme atheists such as Richard Dawkins do not claim to know there isn't a God.
This is what I've seen, and I've seen a lot of atheists.
Muddying the waters even more, a higher percentage of atheists that bother debating on a forum may claim to know, but they do not represent the silent majority.

As for you bringing up the word "delusion", I'd say the more deluded is one who refuses to see evidence which is right in front of one's face. I'm referring of course to the insane number of times I've provided sources which back my claim on the definition of atheism.

And I still find it funny that someone who self proclaims himself/herself as not needing to insult others is at the forefront of insulting others.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Again you seem to be misunderstanding what atheism is.
Atheism: a lack of belief in a deity
So if theism didn't exist, you still would have no belief in a deity, in which case you would be an atheist. The word may not exist to describe it in such a reality, but the meaning would be the same.
We're all born atheists, because we're all born without a belief in god. You can't believe what you don't know.


And yet you cannot find the definition you so hold to via any other source. Ho hum.


I believe I gave 7 sources in one of my previous posts...
The funny thing is, you ignored them all..
I guess sources don't mean jack if you just ignore them.

But remember one thing.
Once you decide to deny ignorance, google is your friend.


Edit to add:

Just for further reading on the subject:


atheism.about.com...




Belief, Disbelief, and Denial: Disbelief is Not the Same as Denial
Atheists who try to explain what atheism is and is not encounter significant hurdles created by the failure of so many people to understand basic terms like belief, disbelief, knowledge, and faith. Atheists can't expect people to truly comprehend how atheism is the absence of belief in gods if they don't understand how belief differs from knowledge or how disbelief differs from denial. Atheists who can explain these basic concepts may find it easier to have productive discussions with theists.

Not Believing vs. Believing Not - The Difference Between Disbelief and Denial
Many have trouble comprehending that 'not believing X' (not believe gods exist) doesn't mean the same as 'believing not X' (believe gods do not exist). The placement of the negative is key: the first means not having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is true, the second means having the mental attitude that proposition X (gods exist) is false. The difference here is between disbelief and denial: the first is disbelief in the broad or narrow sense whereas the second is denial.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by TruthParadox]

[edit on 5-8-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


Nope I'm not 'dead wrong'.


Actually you are. You can point to a broadbased user editted wiki like wikipedia.org *no doubt edited by those like yourself trying to hide your stance in a fog of "It's not a stance!" BS* and a website promoting religious tolerance that will naturally aquelesce to the wishes of certain dishonest people it doesn't make it true *hell the fact that it is on a website about religious tolerance is an argument of several degrees against your stance*. I though, provide a source from a dictionary that is quite widely accepted as a reputable source for information on the meanings of words within the English langauge. And that's without even delving into the morass of illogic that makes up the "It aint a belief or a stance." morass that is only created so that certain people can feel just a little bit more over their chosen opponents.


do pay attention, I'm sure far more than you do, and even many extreme atheists such as Richard Dawkins do not claim to know there isn't a God.
This is what I've seen, and I've seen a lot of atheists.
Muddying the waters even more, a higher percentage of atheists that bother debating on a forum may claim to know, but they do not represent the silent majority.

As for you bringing up the word "delusion", I'd say the more deluded is one who refuses to see evidence which is right in front of one's face. I'm referring of course to the insane number of times I've provided sources which back my claim on the definition of atheism.

And I still find it funny that someone who self proclaims himself/herself as not needing to insult others is at the forefront of insulting others.


And you proceed to insult me? Big suprise really.
It's funny how often people who claim to champion logic and rational thinking will so often abuse the logical fallacy Ad Hom at the drop of a hat.
From good old merriam-webster:

Main Entry: de·lu·sion
Pronunciation: \di-ˈlü-zhən, dē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion-, delusio, from deludere
Date: 15th century
1 : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs

SOURCE:www.merriam-webster.com...
Now, how exactly is authoring a book known as "The God Delusion" not taking just the stance you claim is not being taken? And it is funny and not to mention more than a little convient that you would invoke a "silent majority" as proof against what I was saying.....


I believe I gave 7 sources in one of my previous posts...
The funny thing is, you ignored them all..
I guess sources don't mean jack if you just ignore them.


Biased or broad "it could possibly mean this" sources don't mean jack but then again I am expected to accept what you say as gospel and I am not, so, I do understand forgive why you feel you must attack. Though for the reasons I spoke earlier I found it funny.



[edit on 5-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Actually you are. You can point to a broadbased user editted wiki like wikipedia.org *no doubt edited by those like yourself trying to hide your stance in a fog of "It's not a stance!" BS* and a website promoting religious tolerance that will naturally aquelesce to the wishes of certain dishonest people it doesn't make it true. I though, provide a source from a dictionary that is quite widely accepted as a reputable source for information on the meanings of words within the English langauge. And that's without even delving into the morass of illogical that makes up the "It aint a belief or a stance." morass that is only created so that certain people can feel just a little bit more over their chosen opponents.


I previously said:


Originally posted by TruthParadox
You can argue against this, but you will be arguing against thin air


So in an effort to NOT waste my time, I'll allow you to argue against other sources if you so choose.

dictionary.babylon.com...
www.britannica.com...
www.conservapedia.com...
www.reference.com...
www.infidels.org...


I guess this is just all in my head though...
I just made up the terms "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" in an effort to feel superior to other people..
I believe that's what you suggested, though I can never tell with how paranoid you seem to be about your 'opponents'.

The truth is, I just want people to know the truth.







Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And you proceed to insult me? Big suprise really.


You're the one that called ME delusional. I merely suggested that the more deluded is one who remains ignorant by choice. If this is an accurate description of you, then you insult yourself.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Now, how exactly is selling a book known as "The God Delusion" not taking just the stance you claim is not being taken?


If you had read "The God Delusion", you would know that Richard Dawkins never claims to know there isn't a God, but (much as I've seen you do) he criticized theists who DO claim to know (delusion).



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And it is funny and not to mention more than a little convient that you would invoke a "silent majority" as proof against what I was saying.....


That wasn't proof.. I still believe that on average more atheists that visit this forum would not claim to know there isn't a God.
I was just supporting what I said by saying even if a higher percentage of people on this forum did claim to know, surely they would be of the "militant" type. So the silent majority is logically more likely to not hold such a militant view.
Either way it's just my opinion from what I've seen.
Maybe I'll look for an actual study some time, but right now I'm just too lazy lol.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


The truth is, I just want people to know the truth.


Rrrriiiggghhhtttt. All the while attacking beliefs contrary and pretending yours is not a belief.


You're the one that called ME delusional. I merely suggested that the more deluded is one who remains ignorant by choice. If this is an accurate description of you, then you insult yourself.


I never called you delusional I asked you if you wanted me to post the meaning of the word.
You know the book title "The God Delusion".


If you had read "The God Delusion", you would know that Richard Dawkins never claims to know there isn't a God, but (much as I've seen you do) he criticized theists who DO claim to know (delusion).


Am I going to need to paint a picture for you? I refer you once again to the meaning of word DELUSION. Even if it didn't include the arguments you claim it doesn't, it's very premise is that the belief in such a being is a delusion. Thusly NOT TRUE, or it doesn't exist.


That wasn't proof.. I still believe that on average more atheists that visit this forum would not claim to know there isn't a God. That wasn't proof.. I still believe that on average more atheists that visit this forum would not claim to know there isn't a God.
I was just supporting what I said by saying even if a higher percentage of people on this forum did claim to know, surely they would be of the "militant" type. So the silent majority is logically more likely to not hold such a militant view.
Either way it's just my opinion from what I've seen.
Maybe I'll look for an actual study some time, but right now I'm just too lazy lol.


Hearsay then? Considering you use it as an argument for your stance. Lacking any proof except that it's the "silent majority". Which also denotes a collectiveness that you deny. Just thought I'd add that.

And it should be noted I have absolutely no problem with anyone buying into the beliefs atheism engenders. I do have a problem with them feeling it gives them a right to attack others when they can't prove their stance anymore than those they attack. And I do have a problem with them subverting science as if it makes any claim either way to the question at the basis of the division.



[edit on 6-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

The truth is, I just want people to know the truth.


Rrrriiiggghhhtttt. All the while attacking beliefs contrary and pretending yours is not a belief.


I used to be the militant atheist type but that's not who I am anymore. I grew out of that stage as many atheists do. I still consider myself an atheist because that's what I am. I realized that in the end I really don't know enough to theorize the existence or nonexistence of deities. The most I would do now is debate the credibility of specific biblical claims or theological beliefs which seem odd or illogical to me. I think debate is healthy, but the truth is, with theology it often isn't, as I'm sure you're aware.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I never called you delusional I asked you if you wanted me to post the meaning of the word.


Ah. That was before you mentioned "The God Delusion". I assumed it was a backhanded insult. That's certainly what it looked like at first glance lol.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Am I going to need to paint a picture for you? I refer you once again to the meaning of word DELUSION. Even if it didn't include the arguments you claim it doesn't, it's very premise is that the belief in such a being is a delusion. Thusly NOT TRUE, or it doesn't exist.


You're right about that, I never argued otherwise.
What I said wasn't that Richard Dawkins doesn't believe there is no God, Richard Dawkins definitely DOES believe there is no God. What I said was that even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to KNOW. He knows that his belief is (in the end) just a belief, as even most "strong atheists" do. I believe he states this either in his book or elsewhere.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Hearsay then? Considering you use it as an argument for your stance. Lacking any proof except that it's the "silent majority".


From what I've seen, a majority, even of "strong atheists" don't claim to KNOW that God doesn't exist. I could be wrong though.
I'm trying to find a poll but haven't found one yet lol.
Until then, you can call it hearsay or whatever you want.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And it should be noted I have absolutely no problem with anyone buying into the beliefs atheism engenders. I do have a problem with them feeling it gives them a right to attack others when they can't prove their stance anymore than those they attack.


I totally agree with that. Attack is never a good option.
But debate can be a good thing.


Edit to add:
Just found a poll though I'm not sure how accurate it is.


wiki.answers.com...



Out of the world's 6.6 billion-odd people, about 1.1 billion are atheists, so one in every six people is an atheist. However, it is important to note that only 23% of the category defined as "atheists" fall into the category of "strong atheism". The remainder are "Weak atheists". Weak atheists simply state that they do not believe in a God, but they can not confirm in existence or lack thereof. Strong atheists say that God does not and can not exist and treat this as fact rather than belief. Agnostics, humanists, rationalists, and others would be classified as "weak atheists", so, depending on what you believe to be atheism, the number can vary.


[edit on 6-8-2009 by TruthParadox]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


I used to be the militant atheist type but that's not who I am anymore. I grew out of that stage as many atheists do. I still consider myself an atheist because that's what I am. I realized that in the end I really don't know enough to theorize the existence or nonexistence of deities. The most I would do now is debate the credibility of specific biblical claims or theological beliefs which seem odd or illogical to me. I think debate is healthy, but the truth is, with theology it often isn't, as I'm sure you're aware.


Then why are you arguing the pro for militant atheism?


Ah. That was before you mentioned "The God Delusion". I assumed it was a backhanded insult. That's certainly what it looked like at first glance lol.


No. Definantly not my style. You mentioned Mr Dawkins so I took the assumption that his book would be at least in mind.


You're right about that, I never argued otherwise.
What I said wasn't that Richard Dawkins doesn't believe there is no God, Richard Dawkins definitely DOES believe there is no God. What I said was that even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to KNOW. He knows that his belief is (in the end) just a belief, as even most "strong atheists" do. I believe he states this either in his book or elsewhere.


Yet he plots out how exactly religious belief *a chimera word that lumps together Religion, Organized Religion and spirituality into one word* is a delusion. That bespeaks the actions of one who thinks they know. Otherwise he would feel his book is as spuriously silly as I do.


From what I've seen, a majority, even of "strong atheists" don't claim to KNOW that God doesn't exist. I could be wrong though.
I'm trying to find a poll but haven't found one yet lol.
Until then, you can call it hearsay or whatever you want.


Actually, I call it out and out falsehood. Allow me to show you why, you see, I can easily find proof of my stance:
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Your Religion Is False

* Why "god" doesn't exist
* Why there's no such thing as a "soul"
* How to find "meaning" in a religion-less world
* Which of your religious heroes are pedophiles
* Why "religious tolerance" is a terrible idea


May the Farce Be With You: A Lighthearted Look at Why God Does Not Exist

What's Real? God is Not: A Realistic View on Belief in Gods and Religions

The Impossibility of God

Do I really need to go on?


I totally agree with that. Attack is never a good option.
But debate can be a good thing.


Edit to add:
Just found a poll though I'm not sure how accurate it is.


I thank you for being honest and resoundingly trumpeting it as accurate. And respectful debate I would agree with you 100% but sometimes another's wishes should be honored. Especially when it causes no harm to grant it. Otherwise you are needlessly attacking *which I believe I have seen you do fairly often*.


[edit on 6-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Then why are you arguing the pro for militant atheism?


I'm not, I'm doing just the opposite.
I'm arguing the pro for 'weak atheists' such as myself that are always grouped with 'militant atheists'.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Yet he plots out how exactly religious belief *a chimera word that lumps together Religion, Organized Religion and spirituality into one word* is a delusion. That bespeaks the actions of one who thinks they know. Otherwise he would feel his book is as spuriously silly as I do.


You don't seem to understand that a person can have a strong belief and yet admit that they don't know for sure. And yet I find that funny because you yourself seem to fall under that category with several beliefs. You seem pretty sure of yourself every time I see you argue against myself and others, yet you also have admitted that you can't know anything.
A strong atheist is allowed the same luxary if I'm not mistaken.
And though I can't find a quote right now, I'm sure Richard Dawkins has always been on the "improbable but not impossible" bandwagon.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Actually, I call it out and out falsehood. Allow me to show you why, you see, I can easily find proof of my stance:
God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Your Religion Is False

* Why "god" doesn't exist
* Why there's no such thing as a "soul"
* How to find "meaning" in a religion-less world
* Which of your religious heroes are pedophiles
* Why "religious tolerance" is a terrible idea


May the Farce Be With You: A Lighthearted Look at Why God Does Not Exist

What's Real? God is Not: A Realistic View on Belief in Gods and Religions

The Impossibility of God
Do I really need to go on?


But that's not 'proof' of your stance...
I already know that there are many militant atheists who believe they know there isn't a God. But there are also many who don't claim to know.
You're not looking at the whole picture.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I thank you for being honest and resoundingly trumpeting it as accurate. And respectful debate I would agree with you 100% but sometimes another's wishes should be honored. Especially when it causes no harm to grant it.



But many times both sides wish to debate, and both sides can get just as ugly.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


I'm not, I'm doing just the opposite.
I'm arguing the pro for 'weak atheists' such as myself that are always grouped with 'militant atheists'.


Um....... Right. Considering the fact you pretty much say all atheists are weak atheists even people such as Dawkins? And you are arguing against Sky who is arguing against Militantism on either side.


You don't seem to understand that a person can have a strong belief and yet admit that they don't know for sure.


Incorrect. Strong belief is born out the idea that they do know for sure.


And yet I find that funny because you yourself seem to fall under that category with several beliefs. You seem pretty sure of yourself every time I see you argue against myself and others, yet you also have admitted that you can't know anything.


And here we go again... And I did wonder when that little thread of mine was going to be dragged in.
But, what, praytell, am I strong about my belief in? Seeing your argument you should be able to answer this.


A strong atheist is allowed the same luxary if I'm not mistaken.
And though I can't find a quote right now, I'm sure Richard Dawkins has always been on the "improbable but not impossible" bandwagon.


Once again, calling belief in such a being a delusion IS NOT ALLOWING ROOM THAT YOU CAN BE INCORRECT. It amazes me that someone can so glaringly criticise others yet completely fail to criticise someone else because they share an arbitrary label with themselves.....


But that's not 'proof' of your stance...
I already know that there are many militant atheists who believe they know there isn't a God. But there are also many who don't claim to know.
You're not looking at the whole picture.


You sir are deflecting, obfuscating and contradicting yourself. Shall I remind you of your previous statements?

From what I've seen, a majority, even of "strong atheists" don't claim to KNOW that God doesn't exist. I could be wrong though.


Word of advice? Stop making excuses for your abitrary label grouping and pretending a majority that does not exist.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


I mean stop two seconds and look at your arguments. At one point you talk about how you were at one point a militant atheist. The next you seemingly go into extended diatribes about, pretty much, how no atheist is truly militant *even the strong ones, which warrents the question, who then are the militant atheists? according to you none of you are* as they don't believe they can be 100% correct. Which contradicts a great deal of what can be seen on this board alone. The cognitive dissonance you are demonstrating is astounding man, especially in light of the fact I know you are not stupid. I don't say this to knock you down but I mean come on.

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Um....... Right. Considering the fact you pretty much say all atheists are weak atheists even people such as Dawkins? And you are arguing against Sky who is arguing against Militantism on either side.


You're twisting my words...
I never said all atheists are 'weak atheists', and I surely never said Dawkins is. I said many atheists don't claim to know that there is no God.
And I'm not arguing the points that sky made against militant atheists or theists, I'm arguing that he/she is generalizing the position of atheists.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Incorrect. Strong belief is born out the idea that they do know for sure.


You seem pretty sure of that... Does that mean you know it?





Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And here we go again... And I did wonder when that little thread of mine was going to be dragged in.
But, what, praytell, am I strong about my belief in? Seeing your argument you should be able to answer this.


You seemed pretty damn certain about the definition of atheism lol... I would definitely consider that a strong belief on your part if not a 'knowing'.



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Again, you are obfuscating and dead wrong.


If I'm dead wrong then you must be dead right... lol
That's as strong as a belief gets.

Need I point out more examples? You seem fairly certain of many things (if not everything) you say. All I'm saying is that an atheist can do the same and not claim absolute knowledge. Can't you at least agree with that?



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Once again, calling belief in such a being a delusion IS NOT ALLOWING ROOM THAT YOU CAN BE INCORRECT.



You're false. Just google Richard Dawkins beliefs and see for yourself...
I really don't know what else to say on the matter...
The delusional part, to Richard Dawkins, is in holding a belief that has no evidence. But just because it has no evidence doesn't mean it's impossible.
You can realize both without a contradiction.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
It amazes me that someone can so glaringly criticise others yet completely fail to criticise someone else because they share an arbitrary label with themselves.....


That's not it at all. I'm just stating the facts. =o



Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You sir are deflecting, obfuscating and contradicting yourself. Shall I remind you of your previous statements?

From what I've seen, a majority, even of "strong atheists" don't claim to KNOW that God doesn't exist. I could be wrong though.


Word of advice? Stop making excuses for your abitrary label grouping and pretending a majority that does not exist.


There's no winning with you.. Because you aren't reading what I'm saying.
You showing 10 atheists that claim to know god doesn't exist doesn't magically make 10 atheists who don't make that claim disappear.
All I'm saying is from what I've seen, most atheists ADMIT - ask them yourself for Christ' sake- that they can't know 100% if a god or gods exist, but they believe it to be very improbable.

And if that poll I showed you is even remotely accurate, then what I said is true, as most atheists are "weak atheists".



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthParadox
 


No you are constantly twisting your own words. Usually based on what I say then snapping it back to what you said before once you feel that twist has beaten my statement.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I mean stop two seconds and look at your arguments. At one point you talk about how you were at one point a militant atheist. The next you seemingly go into extended diatribes about, pretty much, how no atheist is truly militant *even the strong ones, which warrents the question, who then are the militant atheists?


You keep putting words in my mouth.
I never said no atheist is a militant atheist, I said even many strong atheists don't claim a deities existence as impossible, only improbable.

If that's not the case, quote me saying what you claimed I said.




Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
according to you none of you are*
as they don't believe they can be 100% correct. Which contradicts a great deal of what can be seen on this board alone. The cognitive dissonance you are demonstrating is astounding man, especially in light of the fact I know you are not stupid. I don't say this to knock you down but I mean come on.


I seriously think you're misunderstanding a lot of what I'm saying because we have a misunderstanding of the word "atheism".
A lot of what you claim I say I haven't said at all...
There absolutely ARE militant atheists, and Richard Dawkins falls under this category. But a lot of atheists are rational and won't say they know 100% that God doesn't exist, just that it's extremely unlikely.
I'm not even willing to say it's "extremely unlikely" anymore, because I really don't know. That's what "weak atheism" is.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
No you are constantly twisting your own words. Usually based on what I say then snapping it back to what you said before once you feel that twist has beaten my statement.


Any evidence for this?
I think you're just misunderstanding what I mean by "atheism", "weak atheism", "strong atheism".

If you go back and read my words, there's no contradiction.. unless I made a typo or stated something wrong, and I don't believe I did.
In the mean time, I'm gonna get some sleep.


[edit on 6-8-2009 by TruthParadox]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join