Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

"I don't believe this, but I say it anyway because it starts arguments".

Textbook definition of a troll.

[Andir]

... there's been a lot less theist trolling than atheist trolling here, so I've got some catching up to do there.

Oh relax, I'm just attacking your ideas, not you personally.

I realize you said "here" but most of us deal with the real world, where money is forced into our hands that has sayings (lest I say scripture) written all over the face of it.  We deal with people on a daily basis who say "God Bless You" when you sneeze.  (realizing it or not...)  Belief in the supernatural has become commonplace in society and you can't help but feel a bit "oppressed" for thinking alternatively.

So, you may see a lot of "attacking" here, but it's merely a side effect of "attacking" out there.

[Earthquake Damage]

Hey! I like potatoes! 
And you don't need to believe in their existence, since they're pretty much proven to exist.

Do you believe potatoes exist?  Yes.  Do you have heaps of evidence to support your belief?  Yes.  It's still possible to disbelieve the -- for the sake of color let's call it the great potato conspiracy.

Fun fact:  Beliefs need not be rational.

Also, belief is still present, with or without evidence.

[Siquo]

So, you may see a lot of "attacking" here, but it's merely a side effect of "attacking" out there.

You're right, and I disagree with that, too. But look on the bright side, at least the coins don't say "atheists are silly".

"I don't believe this, but I say it anyway because it starts arguments".

Oh, no, I believe it allright, I'm just choosing my words carefully. And as theism has been called stupid, silly and ignorant many times over by now, it was very mild wording, too.

[Earthquake Damage]

And as theism has been called stupid, silly and ignorant many times over by now, it was very mild wording, too.

It's okay to hit Billy 'cause Timmy hit me harder.

It still sounds childish when we replace Timmy with Billy.

[Willfor]

It's okay to hit Billy 'cause Timmy hit me harder.

It still sounds childish when we replace Timmy with Billy.

I realize you said "here" but most of us deal with the real world, where money is forced into our hands that has sayings (lest I say scripture) written all over the face of it.  We deal with people on a daily basis who say "God Bless You" when you sneeze.  (realizing it or not...)  Belief in the supernatural has become commonplace in society and you can't help but feel a bit "oppressed" for thinking alternatively.

So, you may see a lot of "attacking" here, but it's merely a side effect of "attacking" out there.

Hmm...

[Leafsnail]

Oh, no, I believe it allright, I'm just choosing my words carefully. And as theism has been called stupid, silly and ignorant many times over by now, it was very mild wording, too.

I just like to rile up the atheists by calling them religious, since they appear to hate the term, even though the dictionary contains more than their definition of the word.

Eh.  Well, again, if you're prepared to spread your net so wide, I don't think it really means anything at all (since everyone in the world is "religious" under this definition - it's completely meaningless).  I mean, if I expanded the word "Terrorist" to mean "Everyone who's ever heard of terrorism on the news" then the fact that you'd become a terrorist under my definition is meaningless.

[Glowcat]

It was finally determined that the position that needing evidence for a God is a belief system, since you believe in that evidence.

Using this forum is a religion, since you have to believe it exists to come here.

[Siquo]

Using this forum is a religion, since you have to believe it exists to come here.

Not really necessary. There's a lot of people who don't believe that all the other people on the internet are actual people. Or at least, they treat them that way.

[Earthquake Damage]

Not really necessary. There's a lot of people who don't believe that all the other people on the internet are actual people. Or at least, they treat them that way.

There's a difference between "X exists" and "X has property Y".

To clarify:  "There are other users" does not imply "those users are people".  You probably believe something is there (even if it's just some program running) even if you don't believe those things are people.

[Siquo]

There's a difference between "X exists" and "X has property Y".

Unless non-existence is a property.

[Farmerbob]

Beside you're atheist if you don't believe in a god.

Or an agnoticist. Or a nontheist.

I wish people would quit wrongly thinking Agnosticism excluded Atheism when they are both a single position that often are adopted alongside the other. While there are people who claim to be "Agnostic" while referring to a ridiculous "can't know anything" position it always ends up being extremely selective in its application and as such is more of a tepid excuse than any real belief. Agnosticism itself, as it was originally conceived, is the position that we should ignore all argument over the existence of things which cannot be proven and stick to what we can know within an observable universe.

Also, nontheism IS atheism. There is only confusion because many of the people who self-identify as Atheist have been too stubborn to switch to a more accurate definition of their beliefs (instead of a single position) and butcher our language because they've become attached to the label. Admittedly I like the whole scarlet letter thing that can be done with 'A'theist, but keeping to the inaccurate label is harming the discourse. For example: See a few pages back where a single position somehow became "a belief system". *facepalm*

The different viewpoints of non-theists are too disparate and based on too limited a point to become any truly cohesive group. I guess that's also why most identify as Atheist since all that unites us is a lack of belief in whatever a divine being is supposed to be.

Another person who doesn't understand the symantics.

1) Atheism is an active disbelief in a deity or deities.

2) Agnosticism is a refusal to decide if a deity or deities exist without proof.

3) Irreligious or Nonreligious people simply don't care.

Neither Agnostics nor Irreligious people are Atheists.  Atheists are a completely different belief structure based on nonbelief without any evidence.  Agnostics require evidence, and Irreligious people simply don't care.

[Il Palazzo]

But you can be an Agnostic Atheist, or Agnostic Theist. At least that's what wikipedia tells us.

[Glowcat]

Another person who doesn't understand the symantics.

Yes, you.

Even the definitions you filched from disagree with your inane conclusion born out of Western ethnocentrism. Did it even cross your mind that religions can be formed around concepts besides a deity? Did you ever stop to think whether these labels are exclusionary to one another, or did you simply run for the unsophisticated nonsense regurgitated by people who have no understanding of the matters being discussed? Atheism deals strictly with the concept of deities and had you any comprehension of the subject you'd never have wandered into this thread armed with asinine gibberish disguised as language.

Don't be proud of your ignorance. Read the actual literature surrounding the terms you use or even their Wikipedia pages.

[Farmerbob]

But you can be an Agnostic Atheist, or Agnostic Theist. At least that's what wikipedia tells us.

Read the wiki, Both of those terms are meaningless, because they indicate belief without knowledge.  An actual agnostic doesn't believe until he has proof.

So an "Agnostic Atheist" cannot exist, nor can a "Agnostic Theist"  Fortunately Wiki is smart enough to be cautious in how they added these terms:

Specifically, this is how Wiki introduces the terms:  "Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:"

Strong, weak, and apathetic agnosticism are reasonable subgroupings, the rest is irrelevant or inappropriate.  Wiki is good with facts, but not so good with social / philosophical stuff.