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.

 

Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

page: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
There are non so blind as them that will not see.

I will make this my last post in this thread as I can see there is no point continuing.

I am agnostic. You can try to assign any label you wish to that, but it would not correctly represent me. This is the VERY BIG POINT that you seem to be missing with you ever so special minor in philosophy. The communication is more important thann the words.

Words are only cariers of the meaning we wish to convey. When I tell people (Except you it seems) that I am an agnostic they automatically and immediately have a very good understanding of where I am comming from. If I were to tell them I was Athiest they would have the same level of immdediate understanding. If I tell them I am an agnostic athiest they would have to question me to gain that understanding.

So whatever your very clever books and intellectualizations tell you to beleive, however they tell you interpret these words, it is immiterial. It means nothing out here in the real world.

Why?

Because out here we DO use the modern vernacular, we DO respect the dictionary deffinitions, and we use these common understandings to accuratley communicate.
What is the point in your truth if it hinders communication?
Next time you go out and describe yourself as an agnostic atheist (Or whatever term you use) you may end up having to explain that to the listener. How does that help you? It doesn't.

The point you need to get your head arround is this (And listen, I offer this as friendly, good advice):

Accepting the common vernacular is the act of accepting common ground on which to establish accurate communications. If that cultural understanding fails to stand up to logical scrutiny, and it may, that is irrelivent.

EX - I chopped the tree down, now I am giong to chop it up. (No, I am not resurecting the tree....)
EX - The fire raised the house to the ground. (Was the house underground? NO!)

So even if we do accept (And I don't, as it goes) that there is some logic in what you say, that is beside the point. The point is neither you, nor Dawkins or anyone else is going to change the cultural implementation of these labels the way you propose.

In your thought experiment you are wrong. Being an atheist means having a view. He did not have a view because he did not have any understanding or learning about the topic.

And for the reccord, I do think it is arrogant to take the view that all the web sites discussing this have got it wrong, that all the worlds dictionaries are wrong, that anyone who dissagrees with you is wrong, and that you allone are right.

I can't be bothered to continue any furthher with this mate. There will be no comon ground between us on this particular subject untill you can see the bigger picture. Feel free to PM me any time to get help with that. But as far as I am concerned this thread is dead. We could spend the rest of uour lives here dissagreeing with each other! LOL


edit on 8-5-2011 by Shamatt because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


See that's just it though for me an atheist is someone who has looked at the hypothesis of God and has determined there is no evidence. Where as an agnostic has looked at the hypothesis and said inconclusive. To me it isn't about belief but factual data to analyze on the subject. I think where you are getting confused is on the hypothesis of belief which can be different than factual taking in a subject. Belief can be as personal as to think that good luck will come to you if for instance you put your tooth brush on the right side instead of the left. Things like that, a hunch or assumption that something good or bad will happen because of X. I can see what you say to a point, but try taking belief out of the equation and then try the concepts see if you come up with the same conclusion.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


so I am going to assume you have never stepped into the realm of thinking?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


We are in a philosophical discourse here, the dictionary doesn't get special privileges in philosophy. I'm talking about how the usage of words by the majority of people doesn't reflect the academic or

And thanks for pulling out your old tactic of "Take one line from a post by madness and ignore the context of it and the rest of the post". I asked why the dictionary is correct because you can point to any other word in the dictionary like "Dog" and say that the agreed upon colloquialism in English for canis lupus familiaris is "dog"...yet there are many who dispute the definition of 'atheist/m' in the dictionary who actually deal with it academically.

Instead of addressing the question you just defend a logical fallacy. Classy.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mbartelsm
 


I deny the existence of deities. I also doubt the existence of deities. I'm open to the possibility, but I deny that there is enough reason to accept it. Denying something isn't the same as being certain of its non-existence. You're essentially saying "atheist" and "agnostic" are the same thing there.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 


Why would you say that? What's wrong with what I've written?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Golithion
 


Inconclusive still precludes belief. An agnostic who does not believe in any deity also happens to be an atheist by the definition of atheist.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 


Let's see the fallacy round up!


Originally posted by Shamatt
There are non so blind as them that will not see.


Insult!



I will make this my last post in this thread as I can see there is no point continuing.


Poisoning the well!



I am agnostic. You can try to assign any label you wish to that, but it would not correctly represent me. This is the VERY BIG POINT that you seem to be missing with you ever so special minor in philosophy.


Snide remark for another personal attack! It would correctly represent you, even if you refuse to accept it.



The communication is more important thann the words.


If you cared about communication you would bother participating in it. Now, how is communication in this instance separate from words?



Words are only cariers of the meaning we wish to convey.


Shocking.



When I tell people (Except you it seems) that I am an agnostic they automatically and immediately have a very good understanding of where I am comming from. If I were to tell them I was Athiest they would have the same level of immdediate understanding.


And it might even be wrong. This is an ad populum appeal. So what if there is a consensus on the issue if the consensus is based in ignorance?



If I tell them I am an agnostic athiest they would have to question me to gain that understanding.


And if I were to tell most people that plants don't actually breathe carbon dioxide they would also have to question me to gain understanding, it wouldn't make my statement incorrect as plants use oxygen for actual respiration and use carbon dioxide in their food cycle, but the popular conception of things is that animals breathe oxygen and plants breathe carbon dioxide, which is still wrong.



So whatever your very clever books and intellectualizations tell you to beleive,


Straw man. I only accepted what's in the books based on their arguments not simply because the books told me to. By that logic I'd be a Christian right now, as I did actually read the Bible.



however they tell you interpret these words, it is immiterial. It means nothing out here in the real world.


So let's just toss philosophy out the window? No thanks. Granted, you're someone who doesn't give enough of a care to bother with spell checking to compensate for a pathological problem with spelling, so I don't think you're the best person to talk about communication in the real world. Yes, I went for a personal attack, I'm calling you a hypocrite here.



Why?

Because out here we DO use the modern vernacular,


Hey, apparently I'm separate from the modern vernacular! No, there isn't a single modern vernacular. Learn to linguistic specialization.



we DO respect the dictionary deffinitions, and we use these common understandings to accuratley communicate.


The irony of the misspelling of accurately is astounding.
I do respect dictionary definitions when they are justifiable. I tend to toss out dictionary definitions of scientific and philosophical terms because they tend to not actually reflect anything but societal ignorance. The dictionary definitions for 'evolution' never seem to include "Change in allele frequency within a population over time", yet that is the definitive definition of evolution.



What is the point in your truth if it hinders communication?


Well, going along with the flow of ignorance helps communication, challenging ignorance hinders communication in the short term but helps it in the long term because an education on terms increases understanding which tne fosters greater future communication.

Yeah, we also cover the philosophy of communication...and I even covered academic communications as part of my studies.



Next time you go out and describe yourself as an agnostic atheist (Or whatever term you use) you may end up having to explain that to the listener. How does that help you? It doesn't.


I like how you answer my questions for me. It does actually help me. I can explain to people what I mean by it and thus they won't have the stereotyped conflict of difference between agnostic and atheist that is largely a result of Christian demonization of atheists in the western world.



The point you need to get your head arround is this (And listen, I offer this as friendly, good advice):


The person that's attacked me several times is being friendly.



Accepting the common vernacular is the act of accepting common ground on which to establish accurate communications. If that cultural understanding fails to stand up to logical scrutiny, and it may, that is irrelivent.


To accept common spelling is to accept a common ground on which to establish accurate communication.

Apparently evolutionary biologists don't get to dictate what their terms mean.



EX - I chopped the tree down, now I am giong to chop it up. (No, I am not resurecting the tree....)
EX - The fire raised the house to the ground. (Was the house underground? NO!)


Well, considering that you misspelled 'razed' and your examples fall upon the ignorance of the listener...you're basically saying I need to cater to the ignorant? I'm sorry, but I'd rather educate than facilitate.



So even if we do accept (And I don't, as it goes) that there is some logic in what you say, that is beside the point. The point is neither you, nor Dawkins or anyone else is going to change the cultural implementation of these labels the way you propose.


Except that we can. And it's happened before. It will happen again.



In your thought experiment you are wrong. Being an atheist means having a view. He did not have a view because he did not have any understanding or learning about the topic.


No, being an atheist means not believing in any deity. I even specifically pointed out that there is a further label ascribed to him, implicit. I am an explicit agnostic atheist, as I know about the discussion. There is nothing in "not believing in any deity" that implies necessarily knowing what a deity is.



And for the reccord, I do think it is arrogant to take the view that all the web sites discussing this have got it wrong,


Well, considering that web sites tend to not have the highest standards...oh, and have you even bothered to check that there's a discussion on Wikipedia about it?



that all the worlds dictionaries are wrong,


I haven't actually looked at all of the dictionaries and neither have you.



that anyone who dissagrees with you is wrong,


Well, considering that I think I'm right on this issue...what else would I think of those who disagree? Now, I respect that people disagree with me and they have every right to. I still think they're wrong unless they can give me a good reason beyond "Cater to the ignorant in order to facilitate communication"



and that you allone are right.


Well, I'm definitely not alone on this. Hell, there are at least several people in this very thread who agree with me. I did get 10 flags after all. That must mean I'm in agreement with someone.



I can't be bothered to continue any furthher with this mate. There will be no comon ground between us on this particular subject untill you can see the bigger picture. Feel free to PM me any time to get help with that. But as far as I am concerned this thread is dead. We could spend the rest of uour lives here dissagreeing with each other! LOL


True, because you'd rather appeal to ignorant majorities and authorities rather than actually discuss what really constitutes clarity.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Hey MIMS, good to see you still around.

Not had chance to read all 11 pages of this thread at present but hope to do so later.

Got to disagree with you here.

I consider myself Agnostic as I believe there is insufficient evidence either way to have a reasoned and informed opinion on 'God's' existence or non-existence and we will only truly know when we die.
As such the question of 'God's' existence is completely and utterly irrelevant.

I am sure that if there is a 'God' and he intends to hold some sort of exclusive after life eternal mega party for the good and the just then 'he' will judge me on my acts and deeds and not by my adherence to some man written dogmatic mumbo jumbo.

The passion with which some Atheists defend their beliefs is disturbingly similair to the blind faith and vehement defence of fanatical Theists.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



the dictionary doesn't get special privileges in philosophy


So YOU say, but YOU are wrong. Just like many posters are telling you. It's not just me saying this.
It is great to be in a thread for a change where most of the intelligent posters are saying MIMS you are wrong.
And the strongest voices against you, are actually people who should be your allies, the agnostics.
Man you truly don't get this, you have lost this philosophical debate.

GAME OVER !

Agnostics 1
MIMS 0
edit on 9-5-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



the dictionary doesn't get special privileges in philosophy


So YOU say, but YOU are wrong.


Ok, show me why I'm wrong.



Just like many posters are telling you. It's not just me saying this.


Someone saying it doesn't make it true.



It is great to be in a thread for a change where most of the intelligent posters are saying MIMS you are wrong.


Well, thankfully the populace doesn't get to dictate truth by majority.



And the strongest voices against you, are actually people who should be your allies, the agnostics.


And I'm trying to tell them that we're not allies, we're in the same boat (except for agnostic theists).



Man you truly don't get this, you have lost this philosophical debate.


How. Please, give an honest objection to my posts beyond an appeal to popularity or authority.



GAME OVER !
Agnostics 1
MIMS 0


This really shows the level of maturity in these posts.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


First of all, I'd just like to thank you for your civil tone, it's appreciated.

Well, I'm not all that passionate about this issue...well, I'm a generally passionate person. Mediterranean stereotype for you. But I'm not particularly passionate here.

Now, if you say you truly have no position, can you prove it? Because as far as I can see you do not believe. You don't say "There is no deity", but you in no way are saying that you believe in one.

I'm guessing you'd categorize yourself as a 'nonbeliever', but why are you unable to categorize yourself as an 'atheist', which is the exact same thing?



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Just popped in to say I think you have lost all or any moral high ground you may have had.

I can handle your one dimensional over simplification of a multi faceted issue. I can handle your arrogant and agresive tone




Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

Those who call themselves 'agnostic' seem to think it means something entirely different than the term 'atheist'....

You so-called agnostics and we honest atheists .....



I can even deal with your pathic tactic of dodging any questions put to you and just asking highly enraveled questions of your own, all the time using more and more big words you probably just looked up on wikipedia.

But when you sink to critisizing me because I can't spell!!!! There are people on this site who can't even string together an intelligble sentance, who don't have the slightest idea of the concept of the structured sentance. And ou decide the best way to deal with my argument is to pick on my spelling. Well you know what? Ypou point out the irony of spelling - I think it was comunication - incorretly! So waht? Everything I have written has been completely understood by you and everyone else. Which is more than I can say for some posters on here.

It really bugs me when so calle dintelligent people sink to picking up pon a dyslexics spelling mistakes. It just goes to show you have run out of arguments.

New Sig will be below in a moment.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Shamatt
 


Words in bold are places I fixed typographical and spelling errors in my own post, not emphasis placed in terms of tone.


Originally posted by Shamatt
Just popped in to say I think you have lost all or any moral high ground you may have had.

I can handle your one dimensional over simplification of a multi faceted issue. I can handle your arrogant and agresive tone


Personal attack.



I can even deal with your pathic tactic of dodging any questions put to you


Personal attack. Which ones?



and just asking highly enraveled questions of your own, all the time using more and more big words you probably just looked up on wikipedia.


Personal attack. I'm sorry, but I don't look up words on Wikipedia, I just happen to read a lot.



But when you sink to critisizing me because I can't spell!!!!


If you bothered to read what I wrote (something you're not fond of), I criticized you for calling me out on clarity when you don't bother with spell check or basic proof reading. This is called hypocrisy. I can't spell worth a damn either, and I also tend to type ahead of myself so I have all sorts of bizarre errors that arise from spacing. I just bother to go back and look at my posts and I see that those little red lines underneath my words are where I have to fix things.



There are people on this site who can't even string together an intelligble sentance, who don't have the slightest idea of the concept of the structured sentance.


Yep, and they don't tend to raise clarity as an issue with me.



And ou decide the best way to deal with my argument is to pick on my spelling.


Nope, that wasn't my best argument. I just pointed it out in passing. I mention spelling three times in a post. Actually, I'm going to post the part of my last post that didn't deal with spelling, and then I'll post the part that did, just for comparison.

Insult! Poisoning the well! Snide remark for another personal attack! It would correctly represent you, even if you refuse to accept it. If you cared about communication you would bother participating in it. Now, how is communication in this instance separate from words? Shocking. And it might even be wrong. This is an ad populum appeal. So what if there is a consensus on the issue if the consensus is based in ignorance? And if I were to tell most people that plants don't actually breathe carbon dioxide they would also have to question me to gain understanding, it wouldn't make my statement incorrect as plants use oxygen for actual respiration and use carbon dioxide in their food cycle, but the popular conception of things is that animals breathe oxygen and plants breathe carbon dioxide, which is still wrong. Straw man. I only accepted what's in the books based on their arguments not simply because the books told me to. By that logic I'd be a Christian right now, as I did actually read the Bible. So let's just toss philosophy out the window? No thanks. Hey, apparently I'm separate from the modern vernacular! No, there isn't a single modern vernacular. Learn to linguistic specialization. I do respect dictionary definitions when they are justifiable. I tend to toss out dictionary definitions of scientific and philosophical terms because they tend to not actually reflect anything but societal ignorance. The dictionary definitions for 'evolution' never seem to include "Change in allele frequency within a population over time", yet that is the definitive definition of evolution. Well, going along with the flow of ignorance helps communication, challenging ignorance hinders communication in the short term but helps it in the long term because an education on terms increases understanding which tne fosters greater future communication. Yeah, we also cover the philosophy of communication...and I even covered academic communications as part of my studies. I like how you answer my questions for me. It does actually help me. I can explain to people what I mean by it and thus they won't have the stereotyped conflict of difference between agnostic and atheist that is largely a result of Christian demonization of atheists in the western world. The person that's attacked me several times is being friendly. Apparently evolutionary biologists don't get to dictate what their terms mean. your examples fall upon the ignorance of the listener...you're basically saying I need to cater to the ignorant? I'm sorry, but I'd rather educate than facilitate. Except that we can. And it's happened before. It will happen again. No, being an atheist means not believing in any deity. I even specifically pointed out that there is a further label ascribed to him, implicit. I am an explicit agnostic atheist, as I know about the discussion. There is nothing in "not believing in any deity" that implies necessarily knowing what a deity is. Well, considering that web sites tend to not have the highest standards...oh, and have you even bothered to check that there's a discussion on Wikipedia about it? I haven't actually looked at all of the dictionaries and neither have you. Well, considering that I think I'm right on this issue...what else would I think of those who disagree? Now, I respect that people disagree with me and they have every right to. I still think they're wrong unless they can give me a good reason beyond "Cater to the ignorant in order to facilitate communication" Well, I'm definitely not alone on this. Hell, there are at least several people in this very thread who agree with me. I did get 10 flags after all. That must mean I'm in agreement with someone. True, because you'd rather appeal to ignorant majorities and authorities rather than actually discuss what really constitutes clarity.


Granted, you're someone who doesn't give enough of a care to bother with spell checking to compensate for a pathological problem with spelling, so I don't think you're the best person to talk about communication in the real world. Yes, I went for a personal attack, I'm calling you a hypocrite here. The irony of the misspelling of accurately is astounding. To accept common spelling is to accept a common ground on which to establish accurate communication.

All is smashed together to show volume of posting.

Clearly what I posted had very little to do with spelling, I just tossed out a total of three comments, all of which you chose to address over the majority of my post.




Well you know what? Ypou point out the irony of spelling - I think it was comunication - incorretly! So waht? Everything I have written has been completely understood by you and everyone else. Which is more than I can say for some posters on here.


And yet those posters aren't attacking me on clarity, so I won't bring it up in passing that they're being unclear while accusing me of clarity. And seriously, it was 'accurately' that you misspelled. It's right there in my post! Why can't you even put in the modicum of effort (no, I didn't wiki that word, I just like that word) that's required to actually refer to my material?




It really bugs me when so calle dintelligent people sink to picking up pon a dyslexics spelling mistakes. It just goes to show you have run out of arguments.


And it just goes to show you that you're the pot calling the kettle black. You're arguing on the internet in an age where there is in text box spell check. Oh, and my cousin is dyslexic. She's also careful enough to go back and spell check her assignments. My father? Also a dyslexic, he happens to write a bunch of stuff and he diligently (just spell checked that) spell checks his work. I'm not picking on you, I'm not saying you're less of a person for being dyslexic or making spelling mistakes. You're the one attacking me on clarity, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of it. There are agreed upon spellings and there are features built in to all but the most rudimentary of software that involves writing that check spellings for you. Get over it.

It's a legitimate problem, you just don't seem to realize that there are legitimate solutions.



New Sig will be below in a moment.


Well, one someone has to stoop to not realizing that you're calling me out on clarity when you clearly don't bother with it is just ironic. And your current sig is boisterous about IQ, a number that most people don't tend to mention unless they're compensating for something.

Would you bother responding to the stuff that I show clearly pointed out was the bulk of my posting now? You know, that big ol' wall of Orange. Or would you rather deflect because I made three statements regarding your spelling?
edit on 9/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: Color



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


No-one has ever proved to me that there isn't a 'God', and I suspect that no-one ever will.
And no-one has ever proved to me that there is a 'God' and I suspect that no-one ever will.

As such I am neither a believer or a non-believer, neither Theist or Atheist and as such I am an Agnostic Agnostic.

Whilst I occassionally enjoy discussing and reading about matters spiritual and religious I ultimately believe it is completely irrelevant to how I live my life.
None of us will ever truly know until that fateful and inevitable day when we die so why waste so much time and effort of our brief time here worrying about such things.

If there is some omnipotent, omniescent being then I'm sure he won't be so egotistical that 'he' would demand such blind and irrelevant obediance of ritualistic nonsense and would judge me on how I have conducted my life and interacted with my fellow human beings.
And if 'he' does go in for all that ritualistic, controlling razzmatazz then I really don't want to be a part of it.
And if he doesn't exist, well, who cares, at least I would have tried to spend my life in a respecful, considerate and caring manner and trying to spread a little cheer.

I think that more or less qualifies for being a genuine Agnostic.

Passion is a good thing and is sadly not that common nowadays, blind faith and obedience in ANYTHING is very dangerous and should be discouraged at all times.
edit on 9/5/11 by Freeborn because: various typo's, grammar and spelling



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
This is not a message of confrontation, merely a message of solidarity. Those who call themselves 'agnostic' seem to think it means something entirely different than the term 'atheist'. It's really a simple question of whether or not you believe in any deity. It's a binary function. If you don't believe in any deity, you're an atheist. If you believe in one or more deities you're either a theist or a deist (though that's more of a distinction on the type of deity).

Agnostics, just admit that you are agnostic atheists, just like the vast majority of other atheists out there. It'll help everyone out in the long run because you'll stop separating yourself from other atheists by pretending that they are somehow entirely different.

...well, they are different. Except for one thing. You so-called agnostics and we honest atheists don't believe in any deity. We share one thing in common, why don't we just admit it?


So I said you had never stepped into the realm of thinking because of this post I'm quoteing above.

First off you say this post is not a message of confrontation, but when ever people talk about religion it is alway confrontational.

And then to assume that Agnostics and Atheists are one in the same without stateing what Agnostics believe all you stated was what Atheists believe, and theist or deist believe. Just seems foolish to talk about the last two as they have nothing to do with the subject but you define what agnostic is but that is what the subject is about.

Agnostics do believe in a god and differnt sects believe differntly about who/what god is. Agnostics and the mainstream religions don't fit together because mainstream religions are about god training humans like we humans try and train dogs. Agnostics believe in a differnt type of relationship with the creator.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mbartelsm
 


I deny the existence of deities. I also doubt the existence of deities. I'm open to the possibility, but I deny that there is enough reason to accept it. Denying something isn't the same as being certain of its non-existence. You're essentially saying "atheist" and "agnostic" are the same thing there.

No, I'm saying that there is a point in which both can overlap and opening the possibility of being called "equal", but there are also points in which the two meanings do not overlap, for example, people who blindly deny the possibility of any deity ever existed or will ever exist, that person is, by no means an agnostic; or people who believe in deities, but are in doubt about their true existence, they are agnostics, but they are also theists.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





And the strongest voices against you, are actually people who should be your allies, the agnostics.



And I'm trying to tell them that we're not allies


Now this answers it, MIMS views the agnostic as a threat to HIS personal worldview, probably bigger than me as a theist. Because he has sufficiently, at least in his mind, annihilated my perspective of faith, now he is moving on to new territory, perhaps that which he thought might be easier. Again he was wrong, agnostics are very critical thinkers, and they are usually very intelligent and less arrogant, less emotionalism and more logic than both the theists and the hardcore atheists.
They are the middle ground, no mans land, Switzerland.
Yet MIMS views them as a philosophical threat because they still could go either way, so they aren't his allies.

I have a message for you however, what you posted in this thread will never help your cause, just cause these feelings in agnostics as another posted said....



The passion with which some Atheists defend their beliefs is disturbingly similar to the blind faith and vehement defense of fanatical Theists.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 


So...your ignorance on what 'agnosticism' is means that I'm not thinking? I'm sorry, but a lot of agnostics don't believe in any deity of any sort. Sure, there are agnostics who do believe, but there are also agnostics who do.



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Yay! Quote mining. So when I finish a statement "we're in the same group", I'm setting them up as my enemies? I'm sorry, but you're a liar. You just lied. Right there. I'm not setting agnostics up as a threat, I'm setting them up as members of the group I belong to. I don't tend to consider my comrades my enemies.

They are no Switzerland, they are a group of people who do not believe and happen to not acknowledge it. They're skeptics like the rest of atheists.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join