Anonymous wrote:I am not Ranting Atheist, but I find her posts compelling.
Not sick of her at all.

Which part? The grammar mistakes? The random abuse-spewing? The horrible logic that makes you roll your eyes? The derailment of otherwise interesting threads?

I am not Ranting Atheist, but I find her posts compelling.
Not sick of her at all.

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.)

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.

Anonymous wrote:I'm now officially sick of this entire thread because it's gone waaaaaay off-course.

Blame the ranters who drag religion (why???) into every thread. Ranting Atheist, I'm looking at YOU.

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.

Very perceptive, my friend. I think you must be right.

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.

Yeah, can't we get back to people we're sick of? Now that was fun stuff!

I'm now officially sick of this entire thread because it's gone waaaaaay off-course.

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.

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.

You only say that because you find the possibility of God compelling. Your point is that we can never prove a negative, but we disbelieve in things all the time. We do so when there is a total absence of evidence to confirm it.

I am not an atheist, but if I asked you whether you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you would say "no". You do not say "I need to be more rational and humble, it's a big world out there an a spaghetti monster could be flying around some atoll in the Pacific".

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.

You only say that because you find the possibility of God compelling. Your point is that we can never prove a negative, but we disbelieve in things all the time. We do so when there is a total absence of evidence to confirm it.

I am not an atheist, but if I asked you whether you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you would say "no". You do not say "I need to be more rational and humble, it's a big world out there an a spaghetti monster could be flying around some atoll in the Pacific".

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not the person you are sparring with, and my whole family is physical scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.

My family is doctors, pick-pockets, fletchers, whore-mongers, and iron welders. Not sure how that is germane to the discussion.

I think I love you. ---A Charwoman.

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.