Posters your sick of!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think you are AWESOME Ranting Atheist, keep at it!

This is definitely RA him/herself. Any normal person (well, not normal, but please try to keep up) would have said "I think you're awesome". RA doesn't know the difference between you're and your, so s/he went with the safe, awkward, formal "I think you are awesome" (which I definitely don't).
I'm still sick of RA and all his/her multiple personas.

Is there a problem with writing you "you are."
"you're" is simply an abbreviation, but is there some rule that you must use it in this form only?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism IS a religion. Don't listen to them. The only ones with brains are agnostics.

Aren't agnostics just atheists in denial?

No, they are the ones who are rational and humble enough to accept that they don't know everything about everything.

Exactly. You can't prove there is a God, but you can't prove there is one, either. Atheism is a bit . . . egotistical, for lack of a better word. I like the term Skeptic to describe myself, because I'm open to the possibility of either option but skeptical of any person or religion who claims to know "the truth" and wants you to act a certain way based on this truth.

Didn't both Darwin and Einstein consider themselves agnostic? In fact, while Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, I think he embraced the same concept of god that Spinoza did. If neither Einstein nor Darwin considered themselves all-knowing enough to reject the existence of god, who am I to do so?

[Anonymous]

Atheism is fine except most of the ones ive met disrespect religions and teach their kids to make fun of or discriminate against those that believe in a religion. Instead of teaching atheism they teach intollerance and that everyone else is stupid.

Here is a good article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/camp-quest-is-atheists-answer-to-bible-school/2011/07/19/gIQAe1hRbI_story.html

[Anonymous]

Another smart person who rejected a lot of the miracle-talk in the bible, but who still considered himself a theist, was Jefferson. It's amusing that Ranting Atheist, who is unable to write a coherent sentence, thinks she's smarter than any of these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is fine except most of the ones ive met disrespect religions and teach their kids to make fun of or discriminate against those that believe in a religion. Instead of teaching atheism they teach intollerance and that everyone else is stupid.

I've noticed this too - why are so many atheists arrogant, unintrospective, and intolerant? Sure, there are plenty of fundamentalists of all religions who fall in to the same category.

But atheists like to think they're big thinkers, so it's doubly disappointing to have them represented by self-promoters like Dawkins and Bart Ehrman. (For historical critiques, instead of the money-grubbing Ehrman with his books with cheesy titles like "Jesus, Interrupted", try Borg or Crossan who are totally unmarketable nerds you can trust). Or here on DCUM by the Ranting Atheist.

Can't you agnostics/atheists do us -- and yourselves! -- a favor, and put better some faces forward?

[Anonymous]

the anti-circumcision poster is driving me BANANAS. i have a hunch they don't even have kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is fine except most of the ones ive met disrespect religions and teach their kids to make fun of or discriminate against those that believe in a religion. Instead of teaching atheism they teach intollerance and that everyone else is stupid.

I've noticed this too - why are so many atheists arrogant, unintrospective, and intolerant? Sure, there are plenty of fundamentalists of all religions who fall in to the same category.

But atheists like to think they're big thinkers, so it's doubly disappointing to have them represented by self-promoters like Dawkins and Bart Ehrman. (For historical critiques, instead of the money-grubbing Ehrman with his books with cheesy titles like "Jesus, Interrupted", try Borg or Crossan who are totally unmarketable nerds you can trust). Or here on DCUM by the Ranting Atheist.

Can't you agnostics/atheists do us -- and yourselves! -- a favor, and put better some faces forward?

I think this about very religious people who try to shove their religion and beliefs down my throat. They are arrogant, unintrospective and intoleran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is fine except most of the ones ive met disrespect religions and teach their kids to make fun of or discriminate against those that believe in a religion. Instead of teaching atheism they teach intollerance and that everyone else is stupid.

I've noticed this too - why are so many atheists arrogant, unintrospective, and intolerant? Sure, there are plenty of fundamentalists of all religions who fall in to the same category.

But atheists like to think they're big thinkers, so it's doubly disappointing to have them represented by self-promoters like Dawkins and Bart Ehrman. (For historical critiques, instead of the money-grubbing Ehrman with his books with cheesy titles like "Jesus, Interrupted", try Borg or Crossan who are totally unmarketable nerds you can trust). Or here on DCUM by the Ranting Atheist.

Can't you agnostics/atheists do us -- and yourselves! -- a favor, and put better some faces forward?

I think this about very religious people who try to shove their religion and beliefs down my throat. They are arrogant, unintrospective and intoleran.

Certainly there are some (not all) religious people like this. But two wrongs don't make a right.

And don't you want to be "better" than these other people, instead of sinking to their level? Don't you want to be a beaming light for atheism - instead of the turd in the punchbowl?

[Anonymous]

Actually, the Ranting Atheist enjoys being the turd in the punchbowl. It's some weird psychological need.

It doesn't seem to cross her mind that she's proving to the rest of us that atheists can be just as big a$$holes as the most intolerant fundamentalist.

[Anonymous]

People who hijack threads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is fine except most of the ones ive met disrespect religions and teach their kids to make fun of or discriminate against those that believe in a religion. Instead of teaching atheism they teach intollerance and that everyone else is stupid.

Here is a good article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/camp-quest-is-atheists-answer-to-bible-school/2011/07/19/gIQAe1hRbI_story.html

Don't all religions believe in the superiority of their religion over others? And many religious folks judge and are intolerant of others, which is probably worse than a non-religious person doing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Atheists do not assert that there is 100 percent certainty that god does not exist. What we say is that, absent any evidence to support it, there is no reason to retain the hypothesis.

I'm not sure I get the distinction involved in "no reason to retain the hypothesis." You seem to be saying there may be a <1% chance there's a God (in other words, as you said above, you are not 100% certain there is NO god). You don't find this 1% worth pursuing or "retaining." Which is fine with me. However, in the absence of 100% certainty, this still means you're an agnostic rather than an atheist.

I am not that poster but you do not seem to get that in everyday life we all disbelieve in things even though the reason is lack of evidence. Do you carry a winter coat in the summertime because you are agnostic on whether it will snow? No, you say you do not believe it will snow even though in that case there is some historical evidence that it could.

But you do not seem to get that 99% certainty is not the same as 100% certainty. Yet the first means you're agnostic and the second means you're atheist.

As for your analogy involving winter coats and snow, what it's saying is that you act as though you think there's no god. Which, as I said, is absolutely fine with me. Also, acting as though you don't believe in god makes complete sense in your situation, because you believe there's <1% chance there's a god. But acting as though there's no god is totally different from being 100% certain there is no god. Belief and action are like apples and oranges, you can't muddle them like this. And since you're not 100% certain, it *doesn't matter how you act* because you're an agnostic by definition.

Perhaps you don't like how the word "agnostic" implies that you have even a 1% doubt. Perhaps you worry that it implies you have a 50% doubt, and you're insulted by this implication. But I'm here to tell you that by the strict definitions of the words "atheist" and "agnostic," you're an agnostic. Don't blame any of us, we didn't create these definitions. Also, as another PP pointed out, the 100% surety required for atheism implies an egotism that even that master self-promoter, Dawkins, won't cop to. And if it helps, I and probably lots of others here take "agnostic" to mean 1% doubt, not 50% doubt.

(Also, the summer snow analogy doesn't work for me on a different level, but rather than unpack the reasons why, I'll just leave it alone.)

No, you are choosing a definition of atheism that lets you invalidate it. The favorite whipping boy of theists is Richard Dawkins, and his definition of atheism is as follows: ""I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"

You can tell him he's wrong for calling himself an atheist, but then if this is the definition that atheists use to describe their position, how do you get to tell them they are wrong? It's like telling Hindus they are not really Hindus because your preacher described the religion to you, and they don't seem to practice it.

In contrast, agnosticism is actually a term invented by one man in the 1800's, TH Huxley. He had a specific philosophical concern, namely that God is not only unknown but may be unknowable. In this context agnosticism could make sense as a separate distinction, independent of the probabilities you assign to the God question.

FWIW I am a Catholic. I see it as dishonest to allow people to define a belief system for another group and then correct them for not complying with it.

[Anonymous]

Actually, Dawkins doesn't describe himself as a "strong atheist." Instead he talks about being a category he calls "de facto atheist" which allows for a very low probability, short of zero, of the probability of god. Then he goes on to say that "de facto atheists" are the same as what he calls "temporary agnostism."

From this link (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html):

"Dawkins' central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1: 'Strong theist. 100% probability of God' to the equivalent 7: 'Strong atheist'. He doesn't see 7 as a well-populated category, placing himself as 6: 'Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist'.[6] Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'."

If you read the rest of the piece, it goes on to say that Dawkins "divides agnosticism into TAP (temporary agnosticism in practice) and PAP (permanent agnosticism in principle), identifying the first as Sagan's stance on alien life...." According to this piece, all but categories 1 and 7 are TAP.

To me, there's a bit of extraneous word play here, but it comes down to his category 6, where he puts himself, as being basically agnostic (what he calls "temporary agnosticism in practice" or TAP).

As far as his "temporary agnosticism in practice" goes, whether you are talking about not wearing a parka in June, or fairies in the garden, it comes down to acting like something doesn't exist, i.e. "in practice" as he says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually, Dawkins doesn't describe himself as a "strong atheist." Instead he talks about being a category he calls "de facto atheist" which allows for a very low probability, short of zero, of the probability of god. Then he goes on to say that "de facto atheists" are the same as what he calls "temporary agnostism."

From this link (http://www.investigatingatheism.info/definition.html):

"Dawkins' central argument against religion is probabilistic, and his scale of belief reflects this, ranging from 1: 'Strong theist. 100% probability of God' to the equivalent 7: 'Strong atheist'. He doesn't see 7 as a well-populated category, placing himself as 6: 'Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist'.[6] Again, this terminology suggests that he sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. It should not be taken for a lack of certainty in a practical sense, however: Dawkins states 'I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden'."

If you read the rest of the piece, it goes on to say that Dawkins "divides agnosticism into TAP (temporary agnosticism in practice) and PAP (permanent agnosticism in principle), identifying the first as Sagan's stance on alien life...." According to this piece, all but categories 1 and 7 are TAP.

To me, there's a bit of extraneous word play here, but it comes down to his category 6, where he puts himself, as being basically agnostic (what he calls "temporary agnosticism in practice" or TAP).

As far as his "temporary agnosticism in practice" goes, whether you are talking about not wearing a parka in June, or fairies in the garden, it comes down to acting like something doesn't exist, i.e. "in practice" as he says.

So does anyone know, or can anyone cite a post by, a "strong atheist" using this definition? I have never read a post on this forum that would qualify, nor can I think of a popular adherent. Thus it is pretty useless to bash atheists, when we mean "strong atheists", if we cannot even find one to bash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No, you are choosing a definition of atheism that lets you invalidate it. The favorite whipping boy of theists is Richard Dawkins, and his definition of atheism is as follows: ""I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there"

You can tell him he's wrong for calling himself an atheist, but then if this is the definition that atheists use to describe their position, how do you get to tell them they are wrong? It's like telling Hindus they are not really Hindus because your preacher described the religion to you, and they don't seem to practice it.

Wanted to address this separately. As I noted above, Dawkins, does not define himself as a strict atheist, rather he says he is "agnostic" according to how he defines agnosticism.

But your quote brings us back to the difference between belief (the 99% or 100% question) and action ("I live my life as though he is not there" and the quotes from the article I cited re "de facto atheism" or "temporary atheism in practice" or TAP). I think it's totally consistent with what Dawkins is saying to distinguish between (1) one's take on the probability of god's existence, and (2) how you live your life/how you act. Dawkins seems to do this himself: at the end of the day, he still says (1) he's agnostic because he's not 100% certain god doesn't exist, however he says (2) he acts as if God doesn't exist, ie. he acts as if he's atheist (what he calls TAP).

To bring this full circle, this is a bit of a sidetrack, although an interesting one, to the point that several of us have addressed to the Ranting Atheist. Our first point was about her hubris in claiming she's 100% certain, because even Dawkins doesn't do this. My other point was that her analogy about wearing a parka in July was flawed, because she seems to be implying that if you act a certain way (not wearing parkas, not praying), this is the same thing as being certain your beliefs are 100% true. That's[b] not what Dawkins is saying when he says "I think God is very improbable, but live my life as though he's not there."

Signed,
An Episcopalian
(Gotta go off to a party, sorry to sign off, this is interesting)