Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Thumper]

So idk if I needed it or if I'm stressed or sick or what, but I just slept twenty hours, and lo and behold when I woke up I feel nothing but distaste for arguing with militant atheist fundamentalists. It's basically what happened when I stopped arguing evolution with creationists. Either way, no part of me is even close to responding to the 20+ notifications on this thread.

What is a "militant atheist?"

I know what a militant Muslim is - that's someone who uses suicide bombs to blow up people, usually other Muslims.

I know what a militant Christian is - that's someone who blows up family planning clinics.

Militant atheist has me stumped. Would that be someone who dares to make you think and wants to post links to science and other evil stuff like that. I know eating from the tree of knowledge is a sin, but do modern people still have to take it so literally?

 

[1137]

What is a "militant atheist?"

I know what a militant Muslim is - that's someone who uses suicide bombs to blow up people, usually other Muslims.

I know what a militant Christian is - that's someone who blows up family planning clinics.

Militant atheist has me stumped. Would that be someone who dares to make you think and wants to post links to science and other evil stuff like that. I know eating from the tree of knowledge is a sin, but do modern people still have to take it so literally?

You're right, I'll go with pseudo or fundamentalist atheism, it fits better anyways.

 

[Thumper]

You're right, I'll go with pseudo or fundamentalist atheism, it fits better anyways.

Pseudo - not genuine; sham.

Fundamentalist (adjective) - relating to or advocating the strict, literal interpretation of religious text.

Gee, these seem like opposites. But these labels still have me stumped. Why don't you quite beating around the bush and just come out and tell us all how much you hate this group of people you clearly don't really understand.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An agnostic doesn't know if gods exist or not. That the agnostic may have the stance that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable is beside the point.

It's the only characteristic that makes a person an agnostic. If that characteristic is irrelevant to you, why use the term "agnostic" at all?

The two stances we are concerned with are the stance "I know gods exist" and "I know gods don't exist" and he has neither of those.

But there are people who haven't taken either stance but aren't agnostic. They're all implicit atheists, but not all agnostics.

 

[ArtieE]

It's the only characteristic that makes a person an agnostic. If that characteristic is irrelevant to you, why use the term "agnostic" at all?

An agnostic is a person who doesn't know if gods exist. Whether the person also claims that one can't know if gods exist is irrelevant to the first point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An agnostic is a person who doesn't know if gods exist. Whether the person also claims that one can't know if gods exist is irrelevant to the first point.

I think we fundamentally disagree on what "agnostic" means.

"Agnostic" is pretty unique as far as words go: it was coined by one specific individual (T. H. Huxley) who clearly explained what it meant. I think I'll go with his definition over yours; it doesn't just mean "I don't know."

 

[1137]

Pseudo - not genuine; sham.

Fundamentalist (adjective) - relating to or advocating the strict, literal interpretation of religious text.

Gee, these seem like opposites. But these labels still have me stumped. Why don't you quite beating around the bush and just come out and tell us all how much you hate this group of people you clearly don't really understand.

Choose what word you prefer, we just have to illustrate between real atheists and these modern day, reactionary trolls with no grounds in reason.

 

[KBC1963]

Atheism is Religion see Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) and again in 2005 the Wisconsin Federal Court ruled Kaufman v. McCaughtrythat Atheism is Religion.

If atheism is not a religion in your opinion, even though it was ruled as such by a federal court of law then intelligent design as ruled in the Kitzmiller v. Dover, case (2005) would also not be true.

 

[Thumper]

Atheism is Religion see Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) and again in 2005 the Wisconsin Federal Court ruled Kaufman v. McCaughtrythat Atheism is Religion.

If atheism is not a religion in your opinion, even though it was ruled as such by a federal court of law then intelligent design as ruled in the Kitzmiller v. Dover, case (2005) would also not be true.

Actually the Torcaso v. Watkins case was about Article VI of the Federal Constitution that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

But, atheism has legally won the right to be treated equal to a religion where equal protection issues are involved. Which is to say non-belief has equal standing with belief, horror of horrors. I know you think equal treatment is an affront to your religion, poor thing.

However Kitzmiller v. Dover was an argument for the scientific validity of "intelligent design" (creationism), which lost as Behe's had no evidence for "intelligent design". His only other argument was a pleading to redefine science to allow for inclusion of pseudo-sciences such as astrology, palmistry, voodooism, etc. which (thankfully) also lost.

 

[Repox]

If you had a revelation about what is in the box, you wouldn't have to look. Knowing you know, some people would ask you to tell them. Others who know you know what is in the box may be envious. Some may doubt you know what is in the box because they don't believe anyone can possible know. In short, don't tell anyone you had a revelation. Bet with them about what is in the box and make lot of money.

Of course I would have to look to see if my revelation was correct. If you have revelations try to think of a way of getting them scientifically confirmed so we can expand our knowledge base. Tell scientists: "I had a revelation and here's what we can do to check if what was revealed to me is actually true".

How can science confirm a revelation? Sorry, the idea is absurd.

 

[ArtieE]

I think we fundamentally disagree on what "agnostic" means.

"Agnostic" is pretty unique as far as words go: it was coined by one specific individual (T. H. Huxley) who clearly explained what it meant. I think I'll go with his definition over yours; it doesn't just mean "I don't know."

In the context of discussing the main difference between atheists and agnostics it does.

 

[ArtieE]

How can science confirm a revelation? Sorry, the idea is absurd.

Why?

 

[Thumper]

Why?

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."

~ Isaac Asimov

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There's a stance in agnosticism: that the existence or non-existence of gods is unknowable. Agnosticism isn't just "I don't know."

I call myself an agnostic, but don't claim that the matter is irresolvable. There may come a day when the matter can be resolved with certainty, but not today. Perhaps there is no room for gods and it can be demonstrated in the way that it can be demonstrated that there is no room for a perpetual motion machine or an element between hydrogen and helium.

I guess that we have two definitions for agnosticism now: "I don't know" and "Not only do I not know, nobody ever will".

Please let us not call them strong and weak. I propose agnostic agnosticism and gnostic agnosticism (kidding)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So idk if I needed it or if I'm stressed or sick or what, but I just slept twenty hours, and lo and behold when I woke up I feel nothing but distaste for arguing with militant atheist fundamentalists. It's basically what happened when I stopped arguing evolution with creationists. Either way, no part of me is even close to responding to the 20+ notifications on this thread.

If you ever encounter a militant atheist, you will see what you do when you encounter a militant Christian or Muslim: Blood and bodies

.

You expend a lot of energy trying to malign and demean atheists. What are you so afraid of?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess that we have two definitions for agnosticism now: "I don't know" and "Not only do I not know, nobody ever will".

I'm not sure we do have different definitions. When I say that agnostics believe that the existence of gods is unknowable, I don't mean to say that they think it's permanently unknowable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you ever encounter a militant atheist, you will see what you do when you encounter a militant Christian or Muslim: Blood and bodies

.

You expend a lot of energy trying to malign and demean atheists. What are you so afraid of?

I've point it out before: the religious equivalent of someone like Richard Dawkins would be something like an Anglican or United Church minister who people mainly describe as too liberal or too boring.

 

[Falvlun]

I think we fundamentally disagree on what "agnostic" means.

"Agnostic" is pretty unique as far as words go: it was coined by one specific individual (T. H. Huxley) who clearly explained what it meant. I think I'll go with his definition over yours; it doesn't just mean "I don't know."

Languages evolve. Agnostic doesn't only have one single definition in circulation.

Merriam -Webster includes "a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something"

Dictionary.com includes "a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic"

Wikipedia defines "weak agnostic" as someone who "would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something"

The freedictionary even has this "b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Pseudo - not genuine; sham.

Fundamentalist (adjective) - relating to or advocating the strict, literal interpretation of religious text.

Gee, these seem like opposites. But these labels still have me stumped. Why don't you quite beating around the bush and just come out and tell us all how much you hate this group of people you clearly don't really understand.

He's apparently been trained to despise and demean atheists. His bigotry began with the title and has continued non-stop since then.

You might have seen where I asked him where he learned to think and communicate like that, but he declined to answer claiming that he overslept.

No problem. It was a rhetorical question. It didn't need an answer. I think we all know where he learned to be an atheophobe.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not sure we do have different definitions. When I say that agnostics believe that the existence of gods is unknowable, I don't mean to say that they think it's permanently unknowable.

OK, got you. Perhaps we should word that "presently unknowable." I'd agree that that desrcibes my opinion.