The atheist crusades must stop!

Post Reply New Topic

Fnord's post has said it all really.

I have nothing to add to that except that Anubis seems to be a theist in denial. Anyone who is really an agnostic would not only have problems with the atheist but also the theist, extreme or not.

Agnosticism is an absence of belief, it is not a tolerance of all belief. To suggest otherwise demonstrates an inability to read the dictionary.

If I do believe in god, I am a theist.

If I believe in god's non-existence, I am an atheist.

If I believe that it is impossible to know if god exists or not, I am agnostic.

I am agnostic and I have a problem with theists and atheists.

Agnostics can be atheists as well as theists. The dichotomy between agnostic and the other two is based largely on a confusion of the assertion of a state of knowledge with the belief of the one asserting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#T ... gnosticism

It seems that many atheists when pressed claim to be agnostics, although I am unsure if I regard their claim as particularly meaningful because they seem to be agnostics in the weakest possible sense only, it is my impression.

I accept the above. As do many people I know.

The proposal that a being exists superior to all logic with absolute power to do anything throughout all time and space renders any sensible mental investigation as to its existence and policies as totally useless. Why anybody with normal intelligence would even extend the effort to demand respect for belief in such an all powerful being is incomprehensible to me.

Agreed. If God exists and is important, he will show us his existence.

He(?) will, just not when you crack the whip.

But... isn't preaching an agnostic temperament no better than so-called atheist crusades?

For the record, I hate anybody who labels themselves as applying to anothers' theories.
I am neither religious, athiest, nor agnostic.
Technically, my beliefs co-incide with atheism, but I reached those conclusions MYSELF. I'm not clinging to atheism just because someone told me to, that's no better than being a christian, islamist, catholic, etc.
Personally, I view anybody incapable of analyzing and deciding for themselves with the utmost contempt.

The dumbest argument for atheism I have ever heard is equally as dumb as the arguments for christianity.

Christian: Why do you believe in god? Because I can't think of any other way the universe could exist.
Atheist: Why don't you believe in god? Because I was never religious/I didn't like my religion.
Agnostic: Why don't you believe in god? Because it's not my problem.

Scientist: Why don't you believe in god? Sorry, I'm busy with this particle analysis...

well. we've all been told off then.

Last edited by Postperson on 22 Aug 2008, 6:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

And what led you to that conclusion? No, I'm not a closet theist. If I was, I'd be honest with myself about it. You appear to have a negative attitude towards theism anyway.

I AM NOT PREACHING AGNOSTICISM. I AM NOT PREACHING ANYTHING. I AM SAYING THAT THE DOGMATIC ATTITUDE TOWARDS RELIGION IS STUPID, AND NO-ONE'S MIND WILL CHANGE THAT WAY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MODERATE ATHEISM OR THEISM, JUST BIGOTRY AND IDIOCY, WHICH IS DISPLAYED IN LARGE AMOUNTS ON THIS SUBFORUM.

Get it yet? The atheists are particularly intolerant here. Of course, it's perfectly normal to get all defensive when something challenges that. I am apathetic to which side wins, but don't people have anything better to do than attack religion? Why not debate about something more worthwhile? If you look at one page, you will see at least five threads about the same old criticisms of religious scriptures. Try some new arguments and new things to talk about, eh? All this pseudo-philosophy BS is hardly any better.

That is a very strange idea indeed. If you truly believe that, then you must never have read a scientific or philosophical work.

In fact according to that, you and only you must be the source of your knowledge or you hate yourself.

Have you reached the same conclusion as Newton? Or have you concluded that gravity does not exist (theory)?

Haha, nice one. There's a difference between thinking for yourself and trying to figure out all the laws of nature by yourself. "I discovered gravity for myself!! !!"

Why are you so eager to defend theists and condemn atheists if you are not biased?

I've made it quite clear that logically it is not possible to be agnostic and not have a "problem" with any form of atheism or theism.

THAT IS WHAT AGNOSTIC MEANS. NOT BELIEVING IN ANYTHING.

You can't be serious. There's a difference between belief and knowledge.
Yes, I am the source of my knowledge - I know certain facts because I myself have investigated and analysed.
Other scientists' works are starting-points - if you never question, never seek to find answers yourself, you are pathetic.
Many facts are easy; many "starting-points" prove quickly impossible to dispute, and then you build your own knowledge from there.

Did you actually state that only knowledge dictated by others and agreed upon by many has value and meaning? You know that's the basis of belief and religion? The "it just is" mentality.
Einstein and all the scientific greats would be rolling around in their graves. Well, save for the mutilated and incenerated ones...

I was stating nothing positive. I was responding to your rather offensive generalisations.

I only believe in the existence of other minds, the rest of what I know is based on evidence.

Belief = something with no evidence

Knowledge = something with evidence

I suspect I have no problem with your approach but your rhetoric could be better.

Generalisations are packets of information open to interpretation.
If I say "everybody hates me", you should be able to interpret the common principles to conclude "the people immediate to me are currently difficult to deal with".

This is the internet, I'm not about to go into a lengthy spiel. I won't say "every atheist but maybe a coupler thousand scattered here and there" when you should understand that.

Generalisations should only be fallacy when speaking to a fool; they lack capacity to actively interpret.
I take the optimistic view that most reading my post would not be a fool, and therefore capable of comprehending the notions that are generalisations.

It's simply a method of expressing base feelings, concepts and ideas, without going into excessive and ultimately purposesless detail.

As for your statement that belief is something without evidence; that makes no sense.
People who believe also believe they've evidence; any religious person will state their interpretations of events as evidence.
It's method of evidence - science is theory adapting to evidence, belief is evidence being wrapped around theory.

Perhaps I should have said scientific evidence. I don't consider the Bible "evidence".

Generalisations are always a fallacy by their very definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalisation