The United States Is the Chief Facilitator of Christian Persecution

Religions(s) attacking other religion? Not anything new. And i am far from surprised.

But as far as saying the U.S.A. is purposely giving Christianity a bad name in order for Christians to die is rather silly. The government isn't that petty. The government will only carry out military occupations if they have something to gain out of it. Or else they'll just be wasting their time and money. Which is why you usually hear that the middle eastern wars were probably mostly for oil. Not to go and kill Muslims "just cause." Or for them to get Muslims, or any other religious folks to kill Christians.

The Christian persecutions are just a by-product. And it was not intended to happen. It looks like it's just a way for these middle eastern countries to try and spite the western cultures/countries.

AfterInfinity
Freedom of speech makes persecution more viable for many. Christians are not exempt, just as women, Jews, Mexicans, homosexuals, affiliates of political movements and black people are not exempt.

What complicates this is:

1. The lost art of debate. People have this huge habit of arguing "between the lines", literally not dealing with what the person said, but about their own feelings about some of what the person said, and what they felt was insinuated.

2. The ability to recognise that people have the right to have an even horrible view of the world in general without the intent to rule people's lives with it.

3. Or that you can have your own horrible views of the world without attempting to control other people's lives.

4. An overzealous offence mechanism.

Frankly, I personally don't give one damn what people STATE until it harms my life--even if someone is attempting to tick me off, or even succeeds. What I find is that few people can do the same back, at all. They go out of their way to get all bent out of shape.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AfterInfinity
And what do you suggest be done about it? Force a country that is NOT under our authority to change its laws?

Really? Let them burn.

Ooooh! How un-Christian of me.

No, not really:

Loving people means doing what's best for them. Problem is that we're stuck on the idea that DOING SOMETHING is what's best for them.

Let's do it with something simple:

It's good to feed the homeless.

It's bad to always feed the cousin who deliberately quit his job for the umpteenth time, who is now homeless, because he doesn't want to pay child support for his nearly grown sons. It allows him to harm his kids. (True Story. Mother-in-law couldn't live with herself for not financially helping him "start his life over". The dude just wants to get away from this state's cops due to severely being behind in child support. No matter that I personally disapprove of helping him run away from his self-caused problems, my prayer is that he gets his act together. Problem is that it's likely to lead him through hitting rock bottom, yet again, but with no ability to reach soft-hearted family. That includes this family member.)

Most of the meddling our country does we know causes harm, so we need to remove that meddling. Most of our financial aid doesn't get to those who are in need, and there's plain no accountability system in place for such aid, so we need to remove that aid. IF there's anything that PROVABLY has merit, sure keep it there--but that's going to be few and far between. And it better not be something that merely "has merit" because it furthers "our agenda".


But: if we have no need of them, then refusing to finance their economy is a good thing. Also, asylum is a good thing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

boymonkey74
reply to post by BenReclused

 

Ah that would be a great day indeed, I don't care Iam an anti theist, we could do it in a couple of generations not through violence just through education....I think it has started so it will happen.

Not really. If an atheist is raised by moral Christians, then the morals of Christianity are instilled in him before he turns 5.
He turns around and has kids and finds out he's like his own father--teaching the outdated morality that his father taught him.

Eventually, the good or even ill that comes form being raised to any standard will fade out, but it takes more than a handful of generations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AfterInfinity
You do realize that forcing them to defy their religious legislation is an act of war, right?

Enh...

You do realise that in the 1800s, after the Crusades put centuries of discord between Christendom and Islam,a fairly prevalent thought in the Muslim communities was that it was ok for Christians, Jews, and Muslims to intermarry because they were sister religions, and therefore NOT separate faiths, even? Interpretation leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Also, do they need to kill 6 million before we get to the point where we realise that we no longer have a choice?

Seriously, this is NOT this clear-cut.

Now, that being said, we're still not out of these countries. Heck, I'm trying to think of a nation we've totally removed our presence from. And I'd prefer that we would get out, altogether.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AfterInfinity
The Native Americans were here before us. I don't see you mentioning anything about persecution against Native Americans.

Oh, I do when it's on subject and am not using it as an attempt to deflect the conversation. (Seriously, just teasing...)

Frankly, I bring them up under why "gun control is bad".

Hrm, that reminds me:
Google search on Modern Native American persecution. Yeah, Chile's the only one that's coming up under that. Now, noting that, I live near the Houmas Indians. They're not recognised by the Feds as an Indian Nation, although the State does.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AfterInfinity
Maybe because you're the loudest religion on the block.

Hey! No fair! I resemble that remark!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AfterInfinity
No no no. My point of contention here is that you blame America for not taking action against other countries.

I blame the USA for both acting AND refusing to act. Sometimes we have some really bad ideas, as a political body that shows we're asking to be dethroned from our very homes, too.

Why is it our fault? Why is it our responsibility? America wasn't on that list you posted in the OP. And why Christianity specifically? Why not any of the other people, cultures, ethnicities, political groups, or lifestyles they persecute? Why are you singling Christianity out for protection?

One scripture that makes this a little clearer for some Christian's views on this has to do with Esther's Uncle:

Esther 4:13-14
13Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not imagine that you in the king's palace can escape any more than all the Jews. 14"For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty for such a time as this?"

Now, admittedly, I cant' think of ANY Christian in Esther's exact position of helpless power (literally, the both together). Same King as in the movie 300.

But there is an axiom that many Christians take from this. If you're in a position to send relief you do so.

During WWII, you had people like Schindler, Corrie Ten Boom, ect., who willingly risked a heck of a lot get people out, or to save what they could inside the system.

Hrm, another way of putting it:

There's a Christian song that's popular right now, that basically states:
All the hurt in this world, Lord, why don't you do something?
And the Lord said: I did. I created you.

Missionary behaviour can be frustrating sometimes, But the reason we get to the point where we may attempt to control outsiders lives is because we generally have this HUGE drive with this overwhelming urge to help.

Now, feelings really do mean nothing. You can feel for people and never lift a finger. You can have the urge to beat down someone, yet still give them a hand up.

But even just sitting here, and typing on this board can be frustrating when the urge to make things better hits you.

~~~~~~~~~~~

AfterInfinity
Someone is being persecuted. Someone will ALWAYS be persecuted. What do you want? War? Protests? An intervention? A sympathetic ear? What exactly are we trying to do here?

edit on 13-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

What I want, is when it's me and mine, for us to learn to rise above our base, primitive, fleshly behaviours. I do believe I mentioned something about a higher standard earlier...

It's realistic to see that we'll never be free of it. I'd never advocate anything less. But chopping off the striving for better isn't viable.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Disgusting? Yes.

Expected? Absolutely.

What's funny is that some people are willing to go "Yay, Christians Dead!" would be likely to insist that if a Christians calls "Persecution" on that behaviour, that we MUST have a martyr complex. God help us all. *snort*

~~~~~~~~~~~~

GenerationGap
I'm an atheist, but come on; these are people! Just because they believe in a philosophy and way of life you want to turn your back on their slaughter because the American government loves cheap oil.

Frustrating part is that there's a reservation on top of a bigger deposit than the middle east has. This is kind of unneeded oil.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lingweenie
The government isn't that petty.

Yeah, right, and Bengazi was about a movie.

There is political gain from messing with Christianity. Christians DO vote for both major parties, but there's a major core of the Republican party that is tied into a faith-based view, that has this twisted idea that Jerusalem MUST be in Jewish hands. (I can get WHY they come to this conclusion, but I personally think it's a "few screws loose" conclusion.) The middle East is the ONLY part of the foreign world that many voters know a thing about.

Yeah, right, and Bengazi was about a movie.

What does a group of militants attacking a U.S. embassy have anything to do with Christian persecutions?

There is political gain from messing with Christianity. Christians DO vote for both major parties, but there's a major core of the Republican party that is tied into a faith-based view, that has this twisted idea that Jerusalem MUST be in Jewish hands. (I can get WHY they come to this conclusion, but I personally think it's a "few screws loose" conclusion.) The middle East is the ONLY part of the foreign world that many voters know a thing about.

edit on 14-2-2014 by CynicalDrivel because: (no reason given)

How is the fact that some democrats/republicans uphold Israel relevant? It wasn't an attack on Christians. It however angered the hell out of the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries though. Seeing as how they gave a Jewish nation the "holy land."

Me:
Yeah, right, and Bengazi was about a movie.

you:
What does a group of militants attacking a U.S. embassy have anything to do with Christian persecutions?

Look back at WHAT I was stating that about:

Lingweenie
The government isn't that petty.

The governmental heads were petty enough to lie about what set off Bengazi because they were still going on about how they singlehandedly stopped terrorism by their actions up to that point...but we HAD to do something new (a movie, for the love of God!) to make new monsters with. If they're petty enough--or dumb enough--to do this, there's no noble boundary in place. They'll do petty. Mostly because they're sure enough that we're dumb enough to accept it.

How is the fact that some democrats/republicans uphold Israel relevant? It wasn't an attack on Christians. It however angered the hell out of the surrounding Arab/Muslim countries though. Seeing as how they gave a Jewish nation the "holy land."

The first link on Egypt Israel Syria's relations, something so not buried on Google that it's impossible to miss:

The Arab awakening has eroded Israel's sense of regional security. Now Syria's civil war presents Israel with both urgent risks and impossible choices. Israel's long search for impregnable security in the region has in its own view been aided by the stability of neighbouring autocracie. Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, Jordan under King Hussein and now King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia under the House of Saud, and even Syria under Hafez and now Bashar Assad - all recognised the power of Israel and were all too aware of Israel's ultimate nuclear capability.

Israel was the regional superpower, even if that could never be acknowledged.

Anything that sets off the Arab/Musslim world endangers Jerusalem, to those who are of this mindset. For instance, before the instability of Egypt, Israel's ties to them were rather peaceful. Same thing with Syria.

reply to post by BenReclused

Religion deserves ridicule

Religion isn't any more deserving of that, than atheism is.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions..."
- Thomas Jefferson

There is no evidence for religious gods. The principle of agnosticism: the existence of god is impossible to be known or proven. Therefore it's an unintelligible proposition.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

There is no evidence for religious gods. The principle of agnosticism: the existence of god is impossible to be known or proven. Therefore it's an unintelligible proposition.

According to that same "principle", the proposition that there is no God, is just as unintelligible.

In regard to Mr. Jefferson, he wouldn't have supported anti-theism, or even the ridicule of theistic beliefs:

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit the right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. On the contrary, we are bound, you, I, and everyone, to make common cause, even with error itself, to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience.

So much for your attempt at "cherry picking"... Would you care to try again?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

According to that same "principle", the proposition that there is no God, is just as unintelligible.

Nope. Why? Because that's not the proposition of atheism. Atheism is not some scientific claim there exists no Creator. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence. Those are fundamentally different.

Religion however is making the claim of a Creators existence, and therefore the burden of proof is on them.

In regard to Mr. Jefferson, he wouldn't have supported anti-theism, or even the ridicule of theistic beliefs:

Funny you should say!

Here is the rest of that same quote:

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” ~Thomas Jefferson

In fact he was precisely ridiculing a Christian belief. Why? Because it is an unintelligible proposition.

As for your quote. He's advocating the freedom of belief and not that those beliefs are inherently good ones just because they have them.

Would you care to try again?

Your turn.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Nope. Why? Because that's not the proposition of atheism.

Nonsense! Without the proposition that there is no God, there would be no atheism. In reference to God, there would only be agnosticism, and theism.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence.

So they say, but that's not true, either. Atheism is more about the rejection of a belief in God's existence. Without that "rejection", there would, once again, only be agnosticism, and theism.

Religion however is making the claim of a Creators existence, and therefore the burden of proof is on them.

So, what? And, why would you care? According to you, atheism isn't about a "Creators existence", it's only "a lack of belief in god(s) existence":

Atheism is not some scientific claim there exists no Creator. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) existence.

Here is the rest of that same quote:

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” ~Thomas Jefferson

No, it isn't! You "forgot" it's opening sentence:

Altho' I rarely waste time in reading on theological subjects, as mangled by our Pseudo-Christians, yet I can readily suppose Basanistos may be amusing.

In fact he was precisely ridiculing a Christian belief.

No, he wasn't! "Mountebanks" ARE NOT Christians:

Full Definition of MOUNTEBANK
1: a person who sells quack medicines from a platform

2: a boastful unscrupulous pretender : charlatan

Mr. Jefferson was, only, "ridiculing" the "unintelligible propositions" of "Pseudo-Christians". His opening sentence, even, confirms that.

As for your quote. He's advocating the freedom of belief and not that those beliefs are inherently good ones just because they have them.

Yes, indeed! That's why I presented it. "Freedom of belief" and "ridicule of belief" CANNOT coexist. Mr. Jefferson WOULD NOT HAVE, as you claim, supported the latter.

Would you like to attempt some more of your "Abracadabra"?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

Nonsense! Without the proposition that there is no God, there would be no atheism.

What definition do you want to use? The colloquial one is 'lack of belief in a god' not 'there is no god'. Which are, again, fundamentally different.

Now if you want to go further then sure there is the soft/weak vs hard/strong atheist. However the later is in violation of the agnostic principle. Meaning to say the positive assertion there is no god is a violation of it. Such a position is illogical since supernatural things exist outside of nature [if they exist at all] and we can only know what is within nature. Most atheists are 'soft' atheists and that's why it's commonly defined as 'lack of belief in god(s)'.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are quite the friends! Most atheists are also agnostic. Agnosticism is simply the acknowledgment that proof either way cannot be made. It can't be known. And since it can't be known that implies evidence cannot be had. Ergo the lack of evidence leads some people [atheists] to a lack of belief in the existence..



The terms are trivial. The important thing is distinguishing a lack of belief from the claim of knowledge.

A thought experiment:

Do you believe highly intelligent beings are living in a self-sustaining space ship somewhere in our solar system?

If you were hooked to a lie detector and asked if you believed 'Yes or No'. What would it show? If you said 'No' and it marked it truthful, are you claiming it's absolutely impossible that the spaceship could exist? Are you claiming you have the knowledge to be able to make that assertion?? Do you feel your lack of belief in this spaceship is synonymous with a stance the spaceship cannot exist?

The lack of belief in the existence of something is not the same as the belief something's existence is impossible. Apply this to other contexts and it should become more apparent. This is no different with god belief in respect to atheists. Most atheists are so because there is a lack of evidence to substantiate the belief. Present strong evidence and they will change their position.

To bring it back to the 'unintelligible proposition' I hope it's now clear that the only atheist that would be making an unintelligible propositon is the atheist who claims absolutely there is no god. Again, because that atheist would be making a claim of knowledge that is impossible to be had. That is a very rare breed of atheist. When you meet one you have my full support to point out how unintelligible their position is!

On the contrary religious people more often than not are claiming god exists because they have knowledge god exists. If It were me against a person like that the burden of proof would fall on the religious person and not me. I most certainly am not claiming to know god doesn't exist I simply don't believe it does.

*Please note when I used 'most' I'm of course just saying 'in my experience'. Granted I've had lots of exposure to this stuff.

Would you like to attempt some more of your "Abracadabra"?

For sure. I'll respond to the rest of your post in the morning. Been awake for 48 hours.

buster2010
If you want to see ties to the Muslim Brotherhood look no further than Bush. He had more connections with them than Obama ever has.

1. He's the one with ties that is out of office--and is pertinent to the unrest that is currently being talked about. No need to visit something that is a dead horse, right? After all, why blame Bush when Obama does that well enough on his own.

2. He should have been called out on it, more, while in office, I'm sure.

3. Still in the same damn boat no matter if I choose to switch people on this. This is still a claimed Christian who has too many ties to a questionable organization that makes it frustrating to call him a Christian.

4. Does Bush doing anything make it any less of a reason to call out Obama for it? *snort*

Stormdancer777
reply to post by BurningSpearess

 

I agree, the whole situation is confusing.

Have you visited the Christian "Holy Lands" i.e., Jordan, Israel, Egypt?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

What definition do you want to use? The colloquial one is 'lack of belief in a god' not 'there is no god'.

Unfortunately, your "colloquial" definition doesn't define atheism, so much as it does agnosticism. It ignores the one trait that is common to all atheists, and is nonexistent among true agnostics:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Lack of belief, and disbelief, are not the same. Even on a personal level, disbelief is the rejection of a belief.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, they are! A true agnostic would never reject, even personally, the possibility of God. That rejection is the heart, and soul, of atheism.

Most atheists are also agnostic.

According Merriam-Webster, and in regard to God, that would be impossible:

agnostic
: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

It can't be known.

In regard to atheism, that would, indeed, be an "unintelligible proposition".

The terms are trivial.

I disagree! I feel that terms are VERY important!

The important thing is distinguishing a lack of belief from the claim of knowledge.

In regard to agnosticism, and atheism, that's not as important as ascertaining the difference between "a lack of belief" and "disbelief". That's not difficult, and I did so, above.

To bring it back to the 'unintelligible proposition' I hope it's now clear that the only atheist that would be making an unintelligible propositon is the atheist who claims absolutely there is no god.

I already had a "firm grasp" of that concept. That's why, in regard to ridicule, I stated:

Religion isn't any more deserving of that, than atheism is.

That is a very rare breed of atheist.

No, they're not rare, at all.

The "unintelligible proposition" of, "I have a lack of belief, therefore, God does NOT exist", seems to be the standard "fall back" position of, almost, all of the atheists that I've ever encountered.

When you meet one you have my full support to point out how unintelligible their position is!

Thank you! That is, indeed, one of my favorite "things" to do.

I most certainly am not claiming to know god doesn't exist I simply don't believe it does.

Therein, lies the "hocus pocus", of the atheist argument: Continued focus on those "things" that are not atheism; a claim of knowledge, or a belief

As far as I'm concerned, Atheism is, only, a negative response to the idea of deities. Can you refute that?

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


Ben did you try to look up the definition of Agnostic Atheist?

Agnostic atheism, also called atheistic agnosticism, is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism.

Definition: An agnostic atheist is defined as one who does not know for sure if any gods exist or not but who also does not believe in any gods. This definition makes it clear that being an agnostic and being an atheist are not mutually exclusive. Knowledge and belief are related, but separate issues: not knowing if something is true or not doesn't exclude believing or disbelieving it.
Agnostic atheist can often be treated as synonymous with weak atheist. Whereas weak atheist emphasizes one's lack of belief in gods, agnostic atheist emphasizes that one does not make any knowledge claims — and usually, the lack of knowledge is an important part of the foundation for the lack of belief. Agnostic atheist is arguably a label which applies to most atheists in the West today.

They most certainly exist in fact I am either that or an agnostic . If you to define life through root words it is like latin you may miss something in translation.

reply to post by BenReclused

Unfortunately, your "colloquial" definition doesn't define atheism, so much as it does agnosticism.

But we should adopt your definitions it seems. Naturally

I gave the honest broad scope of the term. Clearly I was not ignoring the atheists that do claim positively there exists no god. That however most certainly appears to be a minority. Rather, the common position as I said is the 'agnostic atheist'. Obviously I didn't make up these terms, nor how they are represented, so others see this rationality even if you do not.

Lack of belief, and disbelief, are not the same.

Can you answer my questions or at least share your thoughts on my 'spaceship' example.

Let me give you another one.

Do you believe aliens will invade and destroy America in the next 100 years?

If no, does this not represent a lack of belief? Does this lack of belief necessarily entail you think it impossible?

If you have an interest in this discussion with me you need to think about what I am typing, and not just respond with opposition without doing so. I will return this favor with your words.

Yes, they are! A true agnostic would never reject, even personally, the possibility of God. That rejection is the heart, and soul, of atheism.

Correct. An agnostic wouldn't because the position, as I said, is that 'god' is unprovable. As such evidence cannot be had for god. You misunderstand the difference between a lack of belief and rejection in the manner you mean it. That's really not my issue. You just haven't thought hard enough. The heart and soul of atheism is a lack of belief in gods existence. That is all that is required to be an atheist. Claiming god doesn't exist is an extension of the atheist position and is not shared by all atheists. It is in violation of agnosticism as I said. A consequence of agnosticism is a lack of evidence which, just like any other instance in life, is typically cause for disbelief in something.

In regard to atheism, that would, indeed, be an "unintelligible proposition".

As it pertains to the 'strong atheist'. Which I acknowledged in my previous post. Are you reading them?

According Merriam-Webster, and in regard to God, that would be impossible:

Funny you attack me for using a colloquial definition of atheism and then give the one for agnosticism Instead lets use something that more appropriately reflects Huxley. Which is, the existence of god is unknowable so proof either way cannot be ascertained. This is important because it illustrates the lack of evidence is inevitable.

In regard to agnosticism, and atheism, that's not as important as ascertaining the difference between "a lack of belief" and "disbelief".

Sorry I don't follow. A lack of belief and disbelief are the same and does not necessarily mean one believes something to be impossible. As I am attempting to show in the other examples I have given.

I even gave my own position and you are completely disregarding it:

I don't believe in the existence of god because of the lack of evidence. I do not claim I know god doesn't exist nor do I say it's impossible. Reconcile that with you're saying.

No, they're not rare, at all.

As of now I do not think you're being objective so I can't really put much weight to your words.

As far as I'm concerned, Atheism is, only, a negative response to the idea of deities. Can you refute that?

What am I supposed to be refuting? Atheism is no different than your position on gods of other religions you lack belief in.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Ben did you try to look up the definition of Agnostic Atheist?

I didn't need to. I already knew what an "Agnostic Atheist" was:
An atheist that is not willing to make the claim that God does not exist.

They most certainly exist in fact I am either that or an agnostic .

I never said that "Agnostic Atheists" don't exist. I only said that they were not agnostic. Agnosticism requires a "lack of belief" in regard to BOTH alternatives of God's existence. It's impossible to be an atheist without violating that requirement.

If you to define life through root words it is like latin you may miss something in translation.

I'm not trying to "define life". I'm only trying to distinguish the difference between agnosticism, and atheism.

Please, feel free to call me Milt. That is, after all, my name.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused


Just because someone doesn't want to say there is no God but believes that this is likely the case, doesn't mean they aren't agnostic. Agnosticism involves just not subscribing to any one theory or concept 100%. But as you may notice from your knowledge of percentages there are a whole slew of percentages that you can be besides 100% vested in an idea. Even 99% vested in an idea is still being open to alternative possibilities. For instance, I believe that there is a greater chance of there not being a god than there actually being a god, but that doesn't mean I believe fully that there isn't a god and therefore atheist. Though I find it funny that someone who isn't even close to being an agnostic thinks he can define what is and isn't an agnostic.

P.S.: You may be interested to know that you can be a theist agnostic as well. Meaning that while you don't subscribe 100% to the idea of God(s) existing, you lean favorably in that direction.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

But we should adopt your definitions it seems. Naturally

That wasn't my definition. It was Merriam-Webster's. Did you find a flaw in it? As you might remember, I DID find one in yours.

I gave the honest broad scope of the term.

I don't deny that. Unfortunately, your "broad scope", also, included agnosticism.

Clearly I was not ignoring the atheists that do claim positively there exists no god. That however most certainly appears to be a minority. Rather, the common position as I said is the 'agnostic atheist'. Obviously I didn't make up these terms, nor how they are represented, so others see this rationality even if you do not.

Though others may be interested in the demographics of atheism, I, most certainly, am not.

Can you answer my questions or at least share your thoughts on my 'spaceship' example.

I felt that your "thought experiments" were, a bit, condescending, but that's okay. I've got my "big boy" pants on.

If you have an interest in this discussion with me you need to think about what I am typing, and not just respond with opposition without doing so. I will return this favor with your words.

Quite honestly, I'm more interested in your attempt to justify the ridicule of religion. That doesn't seem like something an "agnostic atheist" would do.

You misunderstand the difference between a lack of belief and rejection in the manner you mean it. That's really not my issue. You just haven't thought hard enough.

I'm not surprised by that. Arrogance seems to be a common trait, among atheists.

Are you reading them?

Their circularity tends to make me dizzy, but, yes, I DO, indeed, read them.

Funny you attack me for using a colloquial definition of atheism and then give the one for agnosticism

Considering that I, only, made you aware of the flaw in that definition, that seems, a bit, passive-aggressive. Did you find any flaws in the ones that I gave you?

A lack of belief and disbelief are the same and does not necessarily mean one believes something to be impossible.

Nonsense! If "a lack of belief and disbelief" were the same, agnosticism would, indeed, be an "unintelligible proposition". Agnostics would have to disbelieve both alternatives, in regard to the question of God's existence.

I reckon that it's no wonder, that YOU didn't understand "rejection in the manner" that I meant. As I said before, disbelief is the rejection of a belief. Guess who I feel hasn't "thought hard enough".

I don't believe in the existence of god because of the lack of evidence. I do not claim I know god doesn't exist nor do I say it's impossible.

I can, quite truthfully, say the same thing. And, I'm not an atheist. Even to this point, the only real clue to your atheism was your willingness to justify the ridicule of religion. That "willingness", also, indicates that you are, most likely, an anti-theist.

As of now I do not think you're being objective so I can't really put much weight to your words.

That's funny, coming from one as mired in subjectivity, as you are.

Atheism is no different than your position on gods of other religions you lack belief in.

Yes, it is. I don't respond negatively, even personally, to anyone's God.

See ya,
Milt

reply to post by BenReclused

That wasn't my definition. It was Merriam-Webster's. Did you find a flaw in it?

I find a flaw in your understanding of it, yes. Here let me repost it.

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Notice two separate definitions. Why would they be separate? Could it be that what you grabbed supports what I have been saying over and over. That atheists can a) have a lack of belief in the existence of god or b) assert they know there exists no deity. Your definition separates these positions because it understands both positions exist.

Here is atheism.about.com which corroborates not just what I am saying about atheism but also what I am saying about agnosticism.

Unfortunately, your "broad scope", also, included agnosticism.

I have explained agnosticism and explained how atheism and agnosticism are compatible. Ad nasuem. Other members even gave you definitions of atheism and agnosticism working in unison. You don't understand this because you are essentially saying someone cannot lack a belief in something being true and at the same time believe in its possibility. That's obviously not true. Should be obvious if you take it out of the god context and explore this in other scenarios. Why would god belief be different in nature than other beliefs. It's not.

Though others may be interested in the demographics of atheism, I, most certainly, am not.

You are completely ignoring the point.

I felt that your "thought experiments" were, a bit, condescending

You have been nothing but condescending from the beginning but I have been ignoring it. Anyways. Those thought experiments were not intended that way at all. You seem to think what we are saying is a legitimate position is impossible. Those thought experiments should have demonstrated your thinking was off mark. You don't want to put forth the effort.

I'm more interested in your attempt to justify the ridicule of religion. That doesn't seem like something an "agnostic atheist" would do.

Someone that lacks the belief in god shouldn't criticize religion?? lol. You'll have to elaborate on that.

As I said before, disbelief is the rejection of a belief. Guess who I feel hasn't "thought hard enough".

YOU.

Disbelief does NOT mean one has to believe its existence is impossible. Disbelief does NOT automatically mean that person is claiming knowledge.

This is what you're not understanding.

Someone can lack the belief something exists due to a lack of evidence but hold the position it's a possibility since they understand they don't posses enough knowledge to know with certainty.

^aka agnostic atheist. also known as weak atheist and soft atheist.

Even to this point, the only real clue to your atheism was your willingness to justify the ridicule of religion. That "willingness", also, indicates that you are, most likely, an anti-theist.

lol what? My only clue? I said I didn't believe in god many times. Remember the definition you gave me?? That was in it. Should have been a strong indicator.

I am very much an anti-theist and I usually address myself as an anti-theist and not an agnostic atheist. Not every atheist is an anti-theist. In fact you can believe in god and be an anti-theist. Deism classically was anti-theistic. Which by the way many of the founder fathers were. Deists that is.

Yes, it is. I don't respond negatively, even personally, to anyone's God.

That has nothing to do with what I said. You're talking about anti-theism and confusing it with atheism.

My point was if you lack belief in the existence of gods of other religions then you should, if you're willing to be honest, understand the other points being discussed.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Agnosticism involves just not subscribing to any one theory or concept 100%.

That doesn't match any of the definitions that I could find. Would you mind showing me where that came from?

Though I find it funny that someone who isn't even close to being an agnostic thinks he can define what is and isn't an agnostic.

If you're talking about me, that is, indeed, very funny. Are you? If so, what makes you think that I'm not an agnostic?

See ya,
Milt