Posters your sick of!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dawkins calls himself a "De Facto Atheist" (level 6) instead of a "Strict Atheist" (level 7). Then he goes into some stuff about how level 6 is "temporary agnostic" or something.

Bottom line, though, "de facto" means "not exactly" as opposed to "de jure" which means by law, i.e. an actual atheist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto

After all the semantics, it basically means he's agnostic.

That's like saying a Christian with occasional doubts is not really a Christian, and therefore Mother Theresa is out.

Once more, with feeling: Dawkins does not call himself an atheist, in cases where he's really careful about defining the term. So why are you calling him an atheist?

Because he calls himself an atheist, and then he defines the term more carefully.

If atheist = 0% possibility of God, then theist = 100% certainty of God. Find me a Christian that has never had a doubt.

[Anonymous]

RantingAtheist 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.

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

One last rant: Anyone who can read this article and come away from it with the idea that the main point of the camp is "discrimination" and "ridicule" of those who believe in religion has a deeply, deeply skewed perspective. Entitlement, persecution complex, and narcissism in full effect.

Great article.

My family is atheist and so I was never raised in the Church. I will never forget the looks I would get as a child when I was asked what my religion was, and my response would be that we don't go to Church. My opinion is there are a lot of very religious people who are intolerant of those who don't believe or question religion. I would also agree they carry a sense of entitlement and carry themselves as if they were superior to others.

[Anonymous]

It would be a lot easier to tolerate your labeling Dawkins "Agnostic" if he hadn't written a whole chapter of his book about "The Poverty of Agnosticism".

[Anonymous]

Yay! Agreement on one thing at least! You must have missed it, but I just said that "both of us" are agnostic about Poseidon and the FSM.

Bottom line: Dawkins meets the definition of agnostic (even .00001% probability of God). He does not meet the definition of atheist (0.00% probability of God). He does not call himself an atheist.

Therefore, we should not call Dawkins an atheist.

I commend you, however, on a DCUM handle that outdoes Dawkins.

[Anonymous]

PP's, I am sick of posters like you!!!! Get your own thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be a lot easier to tolerate your labeling Dawkins "Agnostic" if he hadn't written a whole chapter of his book about "The Poverty of Agnosticism".

Time to repost 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.

Summary: Dawkins sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. He himself is not 100% certain because the probability is "low, but short of zero." He is therefore not an atheist (he is a 6,not a 7 on his scale), either by his own definition, or by his own assessment of where he belongs on his own scale.

You're welcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If atheist = 0% possibility of God, then theist = 100% certainty of God. Find me a Christian that has never had a doubt.

Ah, but Christians don't pretend to be 100% perfect, in faith, in works, or anything else. That would be hubris, and it would be wrong. We leave that to you atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If atheist = 0% possibility of God, then theist = 100% certainty of God. Find me a Christian that has never had a doubt.

Ah, but Christians don't pretend to be 100% perfect, in faith, in works, or anything else. That would be hubris, and it would be wrong. We leave that to you atheists.

Atheists don't pretend to be 100% certain, either. But apparently that forces them to be agnostic according to the earlier poster.

So if atheist who are <100% sure are forced to be agnostics, then theists who are not 100% sure are agnostics as well.

OR, and I'm just throwing out ideas here, theists and atheists both get to define the meaning of the terms they use to describe themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be a lot easier to tolerate your labeling Dawkins "Agnostic" if he hadn't written a whole chapter of his book about "The Poverty of Agnosticism".

Time to repost 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.

Summary: Dawkins sees atheism as strictly requiring certainty. He himself is not 100% certain because the probability is "low, but short of zero." He is therefore not an atheist (he is a 6,not a 7 on his scale), either by his own definition, or by his own assessment of where he belongs on his own scale.

You're welcome.

No, he doesn't. If you read his book he is VERY CLEARLY saying that he is not an agnostic. He wrote a whole chapter in a book about it.

[Anonymous]

So apparently he's said different things at different times. He wouldn't be the first to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP's, I am sick of posters like you!!!! Get your own thread!

The thread is "Posters your sick of!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If atheist = 0% possibility of God, then theist = 100% certainty of God. Find me a Christian that has never had a doubt.

Ah, but Christians don't pretend to be 100% perfect, in faith, in works, or anything else. That would be hubris, and it would be wrong. We leave that to you atheists.

Atheists don't pretend to be 100% certain, either. But apparently that forces them to be agnostic according to the earlier poster.

So if atheist who are <100% sure are forced to be agnostics, then theists who are not 100% sure are agnostics as well.

OR, and I'm just throwing out ideas here, theists and atheists both get to define the meaning of the terms they use to describe themselves.

These definitions seem pretty long-standing. As another PP pointed out, the definition of "agnostic" is the most recent, and that's over 150 years old. We have:
- atheist = 100% certain
- agnostic = not 100% certain, but no belief
- christian = sine qua non is to acknowledge your shortcomings

They are what they are. Nobody here is making these up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, he doesn't. If you read his book he is VERY CLEARLY saying that he is not an agnostic. He wrote a whole chapter in a book about it.

Are you saying the University of Cambridge's website, Investigating Atheism, got it wrong? Or is this another confusion on your part, between his language about "acting like there's no God" and his langauge about "being 100% convinced there's no God."

[Anonymous]

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.

No, it doesn't. People on this thread clearly don't understand what atheist means. it means that I live my life on the working assumption that there is no god, just as I live my life on the assumption that the earth is a sphere, that the earth orbits the sun, and lots of other things that I am not 100 percent sure of, but sure enough to live my life on that basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP's, I am sick of posters like you!!!! Get your own thread!

The thread is "Posters your sick of!"

Really? fuck you. I am sick of the athiest/agonstic nonsense. Go kiss your kids ass.