Posters your sick of!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

In my experience the sine qua non of christians in this country is, unfortunately, to want to ram you crazy beliefs about women's right to contraception, gays' right to marry, and virgin births down your throats.

[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.

So convenient of you to leave out half of his scale. Dawkins wrote:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

If you are going to claim #2 is really agnosticism, you must accept the same for #6. If Dawkins is really an agnostic, then we Christians are all agnostics as well, unless we are willing to sign up to #1. In that case, we can revisit all of the comments about hubris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In my experience the sine qua non of christians in this country is, unfortunately, to want to ram you crazy beliefs about women's right to contraception, gays' right to marry, and virgin births down your throats.

OK, another place of agreement. We agree the Tea Party didn't get the message.

[Anonymous]

How did "posters your [sic] sick of!" turn into an Internet Atheist vs. Internet Christian thread (I am tempted to join in the fun, despite my complaint here).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So convenient of you to leave out half of his scale. Dawkins wrote:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

If you are going to claim #2 is really agnosticism, you must accept the same for #6. If Dawkins is really an agnostic, then we Christians are all agnostics as well, unless we are willing to sign up to #1. In that case, we can revisit all of the comments about hubris.

As a reminder, we were talking about atheists vs. agnostics, and that's why I only included the 2nd half. So my original excerpting had nothing to do with my "convenience" and everything to do with the Ranting Atheist's apparent unwillingness to read long excerpts. (Geez, I've got snarky christians as well as snarky atheists beating on me!)

OK then:
1. Being Christian never required 100% certainty (#1 on the scale). Christianity is full of doubters, starting with the apostles in the gospels.
2. So being Christian could easily encompass 1-3.
3. A Christian who is at, say, 2 (de facto theist) would still fit the definition of a Christian.

I see no reason to redefine "Christian" to exclude people who question their faith, just to accommodate Dawkins and his scheme. In fact, questioning your faith is the most important thing you can do, in my book (if not in the Tea Party's book, as s/o pointed out).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I see no reason to redefine "Christian" to exclude people who question their faith, just to accommodate Dawkins and his scheme. In fact, questioning your faith is the most important thing you can do, in my book (if not in the Tea Party's book, as s/o pointed out).

Totally. I think you can even have Christians who are at 3, who simply struggle with doubt or questions. Which makes them normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I see no reason to redefine "Christian" to exclude people who question their faith, just to accommodate Dawkins and his scheme. In fact, questioning your faith is the most important thing you can do, in my book (if not in the Tea Party's book, as s/o pointed out).

Totally. I think you can even have Christians who are at 3, who simply struggle with doubt or questions. Which makes them normal.

Woops, just quoted you not realizing this is basically what you said already.

[Anonymous]

Put it another way. If you try to shoehorn Christians into Dawkin's scheme, then the only "true" Christians are the Tea Partiers. Do you really think this is accurate?

On the other hand, using
- Dawkin's own scheme, which involves a longstanding, widely accepted distinction between atheists (100%) and agnostics (99%), plus
- his own placement of himself within that scheme (6, not 7)

seems totally fair. How could it be unfair?

[Anonymous]

I am sick of posters who get off topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Woops, just quoted you not realizing this is basically what you said already.

But thanks for the thumbs up, it's nice to have a little boost!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So convenient of you to leave out half of his scale. Dawkins wrote:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

If you are going to claim #2 is really agnosticism, you must accept the same for #6. If Dawkins is really an agnostic, then we Christians are all agnostics as well, unless we are willing to sign up to #1. In that case, we can revisit all of the comments about hubris.

As a reminder, we were talking about atheists vs. agnostics, and that's why I only included the 2nd half. So my original excerpting had nothing to do with my "convenience" and everything to do with the Ranting Atheist's apparent unwillingness to read long excerpts. (Geez, I've got snarky christians as well as snarky atheists beating on me!)

OK then:
1. Being Christian never required 100% certainty (#1 on the scale). Christianity is full of doubters, starting with the apostles in the gospels.
2. So being Christian could easily encompass 1-3.
3. A Christian who is at, say, 2 (de facto theist) would still fit the definition of a Christian.

I see no reason to redefine "Christian" to exclude people who question their faith, just to accommodate Dawkins and his scheme. In fact, questioning your faith is the most important thing you can do, in my book (if not in the Tea Party's book, as s/o pointed out).

Of course! Now extend the same logic to self-described atheists as Dawkins.

[Anonymous]

This is getting way too repetitive. I think I'm done after this, so please try to read this one, since you apparently haven't read the others.

Bottom line - Dawkins creates his own categories to describe himself, so I used his own categories. How is that not fair? But I'm not going to shoe-horn Christians into Dawkins' categories because they make no sense for Christians -- Dawkins' categories make Tea Partiers into the only real Christians and we all know that's wrong.

Have a good night!

[Anonymous]

Posters who throw salt in wounds...If there's a post about the challenges of parenting said poster has to come on to say her kids are perfect. If your in-laws are cruel, she/he comes on to say how wonderful hers are. If you have finacial woes, said poster will let us know they just bought a beach house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Put it another way. If you try to shoehorn Christians into Dawkin's scheme, then the only "true" Christians are the Tea Partiers. Do you really think this is accurate?

On the other hand, using
- Dawkin's own scheme, which involves a longstanding, widely accepted distinction between atheists (100%) and agnostics (99%), plus
- his own placement of himself within that scheme (6, not 7)

seems totally fair. How could it be unfair?

This. Read, rinse, and repeat. Dawkins' scheme may work for him when he describes himself. But it doesn't work for Christians or Jews and results in silly outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is getting way too repetitive. I think I'm done after this, so please try to read this one, since you apparently haven't read the others.

Bottom line - Dawkins creates his own categories to describe himself, so I used his own categories. How is that not fair? But I'm not going to shoe-horn Christians into Dawkins' categories because they make no sense for Christians -- Dawkins' categories make Tea Partiers into the only real Christians and we all know that's wrong.

Have a good night!

In his own words, he is an atheist, specifically a de facto atheist. That's his category.

I know why this bothers so many people. Theists take a leap of faith to reach our truth. It would be comforting to think the atheist is guilty of an equally unscientific leap, namely to commit the error of inferring the negative conclusion on Gods existence. But they don't.

If there is a smugness to atheists, it is that our belief requires faith, and they reject anything other than reason. Why get defensive about it? It's true! You know it, your priest or minister tells you that, and its in the Bible. If that bothers you then I think you are insecure in your faith.

Lastly you can try to twist Dawkins' words into a redefinition of atheism if you like. But then what is left of the term is meaningless. You will find no atheists to debate, because only a smattering of mentally unbalanced or illiterate people will remain. And then you will have to pick up where you left off, except with RantingAgnostic, and Agnostic Hitchens, and an Agnostic Dawkins. But you will be debating the same people with the same ideas. And they will not in the least feel thwarted by the idea that you have somehow extracted an admission that they were never 100% certain. Because they never said it to begin with.