Re: making fun of atheists
- From: boots <no@xxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:56:41 -0700
Ultraviolet <paula.light@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:41 am, boots <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
Ultraviolet <paula.li...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:58 am, boots <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
"$Zero" <zeroi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<>
yeah, well, it's the vocal no-doubt-about-it atheists to which i'm
referring.
Those folks are in the category I label anti-theists. Atheists are
undecided. Look it up, really. No point looking the fool for using
the wrong words when it's so easy to keep things straight. Then at
least when people argue with you, both parties know what they're
talking about. Mostly.
I think you're confused, boots.
Wouldn't be the first or the last time for that.
Atheists do not believe in the
existence of a supreme being; agnostics say it's impossible to know if
there's one or not.
We talked about this months ago. I did some research. I found that
the meanings of the words vary sufficiently to make them nearly
useless.
Here is one example, by this explanation there seems to be no
difference between agnosticism and "weak atheism" except the agnostic
holds that existence is unknowable whereas the "weak atheistic" view
just doesn't profess to know:
I think that's a pretty significant philosophical difference.
Yes, but using the words on the assumption they have such-and-so
meaning can lead to arguably incorrect statements like "if you don't
believe in god you are an atheist" when in fact you might be either an
atheist or an agnostic depending on why you don't believe. I think in
general usage the term "atheist" coincides with the "strong atheist"
meaning, but there was a time when I was in the "heck i dunno" camp
and thought I was an agnostic when in fact I was a "weak atheist". My
point to $Zero was just to make sure and not to introduce any
confusion of his own into what may already be a confusing topic.
'Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through
deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious
teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief
born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they
actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just
lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist"
position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is
known as "strong atheism."'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html
I range between weak atheism and moderate atheism, depending on my
mood and how much migraine medicine I've taken. <g>
I'm not sure where I fit into the piddling selection of words
available. There is something to which, if you have noticed it in
action, you could easily attribute godness; whether that is because
there is actual godness involved or because humans are stupid and once
we reach some threshold of unbelievable events we conclude "godness",
that's another question. I ask myself, if there is a God with any
shred of intellectual honesty how much time does it spend asking
itself if there's a God (another one, above it on the supremeness
scale). I think the truth of it's unknowable even to any God and the
answer is moot in practical terms, but that doesn't make me an
agnostic or an atheist of either variety.
--
sig text to prevent insertion of advertising
.
- References:
- making fun of atheists
- From: $Zero
- Re: making fun of atheists
- From: boots
- Re: making fun of atheists
- From: $Zero
- Re: making fun of atheists
- From: boots
- Re: making fun of atheists
- From: Ultraviolet
- Re: making fun of atheists
- From: boots
- Re: making fun of atheists
- From: Ultraviolet
- making fun of atheists
- Prev by Date: Re: gekko commits libel
- Next by Date: Re: making fun of atheists
- Previous by thread: Re: making fun of atheists
- Next by thread: Re: making fun of atheists
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading