That's the POINT!

And your reply nailed the truth.

I think it's time to hide this thread, it's like kudzu.

do you not care about social stigmas that have very really and negative impacts on certain groups.

Who the Hell Cares? I do NOT care what people may think of 'us' and moreover, I don't wear labels to provide targets for those who disagree and feel like fighting.

Nor do I join groups that may be targeted. I am from a Jewish family, and we've had quite enough of that.

And it has very real and negative impacts on lots of people. Just because you don't care doesn't mean others don't or that it doesn't matter.

If you avoid talking openly and honestly about your beliefs because of social stigma that's a good sign plenty of people care.

It's not about joining a group, it's about being able to be open about who you are without stigma for a simple lack of belief.

Neither do I.

But when someone uses tries to use MY label to lie about what I believe I fucking care.

Go figure.

I wonder how this one would go in the DU Atheists and Agnostics Group.

It is not anything against agnostics, but more of a comment about how people who identify as atheists are perceived. It is stating the fact that agnostics are not viewed in the same darkness as atheists, and there are reasons that people are intimidated into identifying as agnostics instead of atheists. It is the like the difference between being called a poopy-head and being called as ass-wipe. One will get a chuckle, the other will get strong feelings.

As to how the current crop of atheists is perceived, the answer is more likely with them than with agnostics.

The current crop of bile comes from millennia of bigotry and discrimination by theists, and is still occurring today.

Blaming atheists for the negative perception of atheists? What bigoted bullshit.

Tell me all about it.

for the demonization and negative perception society holds of them. A minority with no political power, a history of thousands of years of discrimination and bigotry by believers, and yet, they're to blame according to you. What a fucking joke. The only other group that readily agrees with you is the religious right.

Religious privilege allows people to say really stupid shit.

First, you're stupidly implying atheists are a monolith. Hint, they're not. There are some notorious assholes who are self-described atheists. Feel free to identify with them. Unfortunately, they're the loudest and disproportionately shape views.

Second, you're stupidly implying the social experiences of atheists elsewhere are reflected here. Hint, they're not. I would hazard a guess that you, furiously typing on your laptop about the persecution of atheists by believers, have experienced more privilege in the last 12 hours than an atheist, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Christian has in the last twelve months if that person is living in a country grounded in poverty and authoritarianism. Boo hoo for you.

Third, blind bigotry, gleefully fueled by ignorance, allows people to say some realy, really stupid shit.

I didn't say we're a monolithic group, but you often do, and just did. You didn't say it was a couple loudmouth assholes either, you just said current crop of atheists, which, all I can think that makes this current crop different is that they're out. And even if you were trying to imply a couple of asshole atheists are to blame for the negative perception, it would be similar to saying people like OJ Simpson are responsile for the negative perception of black people, in other words, complete bullshit. It's demonization, atheists were hated long before this "current crop" of atheists, and many atheists arw labeled militant and assholes just for identifying as such, so you have perpetuates this bigoted stereotype lock stock and barrel.

As for the rest, I never implied that atheists have the same experiences everywhere etc. Strawmen everywhere.

However, what you posted here:

That's the kind of behaviour I was referring to, not the usual tit-for-tat that goes on here in the Arena. I give as good as I get but I would never cross that line.


I wish fundamentalist creationists like your friend were the problem. Mr bmus is a lapsed catholic who was okay with me not believing in god, but when I called myself an atheist he physically recoiled.

"Don't you ever call yourself that!"

That's how much baggage comes with the word.

And since we're still getting that kind of reaction from liberals, I'm afraid it's only going to get worse.



kudos to you for keeping him as a friend, I've lost too many to count since Obama was elected. I don't need those kind of friends.

He also has been trying to convince me that arranged marriages are the "true" form and that I should get a mail-order bride from China.

His entire philosophy is based on nothing more than fear of his own mortality and hatred of Republicans. That's enough to be "liberal", I guess.

Sounds like his fear has crippled him. What a shame.

He started taking Paxil for anxiety about 15 years ago and it completely changed his personality.

Has anyone ever discussed this with him? There are other meds that can help with anxiety, it sounds like the Paxil only rerouted it.

He accepted my feedback pretty well, I presume he mentioned it to his doctor.

Maybe you shouldn't have asked.

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 07:52 PM - Edit history (5)

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3] Just using your post seeing as it was the jumping off point

If you come into the A&A safehaven to discuss this thread, please remember that A&A is a safehaven. Don't come into our group and start telling us what we think.

[font color=crimson size=5 face='Brush Script MT']Thank you.[/font][/font]

Much as some may dislike it, the gravamen of discussion is the topic not the personalities.

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

[font size=3 color=teal face= papyrus] Sure, but to anyone visiting the other forum, they should know that [font color=crimson]they don't get to dictate to us what WE think. [\font]

[font color=teal size=5 face='Brush Script MT']Thanks again![\font][\font]

There seems to be a lot of scorn for anyone calling himself or herself an agnostic.

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[font size=3 color=teal face=papyrus]Someone insistently telling us we have a belief when we kept telling him/her we don't.

They can do that here all they want, but I take exception to that over there.

[font color=crimson size=5 face='Brush Script MT']-peace![/font]

Then end result is the same: non-theism. For some reason, however, that definition upsets some people

There is a difference between atheism and agnosticism.

Understanding it is important.

The terminology is merely opinion. It's like Cat vs Feline.

Agnosticism and atheism are two very different things.

It's not like Cat vs Feline it's more like absence of knowledge vs absence of belief.


It's important for both ags and aths to learn the difference. Knowing what the other person believes or doesn't is key to understanding and tolerance.

Atheists have enough problems educating people itrw, it kinda sucks when we have to keep doing it here.

eom

=atheism without the courage to say so.

eom

You have no evidence for a god, therefore you don't believe in a god. Therefore, you're an atheist, whether you have the courage to identify yourself as one or not (since there is no reason not to in that case, other than a lack of courage).

If you think that being an atheist requires you to say with absolute certainty that no gods exist or ever have existed, anywhere in the known universe and never will, you're wrong. Dead, utterly, completely, foolishly, laughably wrong.

What else do you have?

eom

If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist, by definition. If you leave open the possibility that such evidence may one day emerge, you're still an atheist for now. Sorry if you don't like it, but you are.

eom

Just like you're a vegetarian if you don't eat any meat, whether you like or accept that label or not. All of the lame denials in the world can't change that. Cope.

eom

and has been tested.

Irrationality...not a Logical Fallacy, but good for a belly laugh.

And yes...you are being ridiculed...not as an argument, but just because your statements are ridiculous. But you just keep on thinking that no one can see that, and that if you just keep flinging passive-aggressive crap, you'll "win".

eom

scottie's invented a new fallacy. Although others would say it's simply lying.

eom

It's just pathetic, really.

God hasn't been tested, or she has, but just spitting it out doesn't mean a whit.

You lost this thread when you suggested that agnostics are atheists.

Get a dictionary.

Get a good one.

And then look up both terms and their etymology and you will learn that you are sorely mistaken in your assertion.

Atheists reject any possibility of a god or gods, Agnostics simply don't know.

A means not, gnostic mean knowing.

Surely you're not new to these words, why do you insist on using them incorrectly?

Your OP is an abysmal failure.

Words aren't that complicated, you OP attempts to create such a broad range of exceptions to the simple meanings of terms that any meaning might be drawn from them, weak as such meanings might be.

Miriam-Webster:

Atheist: "One who believe that there is no deity"

Agnostic: "A person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly: one who is not committed to believe in either the existence or t he nonexistence of God or a god."

Oxford Dictionaries:

Atheist: "A perseon who disblieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

Agnostic: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

American Heritage Dictionary:

Atheism: "Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods."

Agnosticism: "1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. 2. The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty."

Collins English Dictionary:

Atheist: "A person who does not believe in God or gods."

Agnostic: "A person who holds that knowledge of a Supreme Being, ultimate cause, etc, is impossible."

Cambridge Dictionary of American English:

Atheist: "Someone who believes that God does not exist."

Agnostic: "Someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists."



Seriously. Do you not see that these words are not mutually exclusive, or do I need to start posting the definitions of "believe" and "know"?

Five different sources, and only in the case of the Oxford Dictionary definitions is there the tiniest bit of room for a hybrid Atheist-Agnostic.

You made my point.

Thank you.

Your inability to comprehend basic English vocabulary is truly astounding. I'd love to see you try ordering food off a menu sometime.

than he ever imagined. As is interacting with other people honestly.

It's less depressing than the possibility one has come this far in life without ever learning to distinguish belief from knowledge.

Though that inability would explain how some are so hopelessly latched onto this meaningless, pop-philosophical facsimile of agnosticism.

The religious tea party types would be right at home in this thread.

Then I might read your post as something other than slathering at the mouth at everything in sight. But I didn't.

And yes, you definitely belong at the yacht club, among those who are smugly above it all. Imagining that the empty declaration "Well, no X's I know are like that" is dispositive of anything is quite popular among those living in ivory towers. But no less laughable for all that.

and what it allows one to say regarding truth.

The empirical claim that evidence is lacking is not a claim of existence or non-existence of the subject matter.

It's a fundamental approach to truth that you apparently do not understand. Empiricism recognizes that truth will always be incomplete. Such a belief holds that truth may be subject to revision as new knowledge is revealed. In this way of thinking, the idea of truth as eternal and unchanging is unsupportable; even if you arrived at perfect truth, you'd have no way to know it.

An empiricist's claim that, "evidence for God does not exist", is NOT the same thing as "God does not exist".

Stubbornly insisting otherwise doesn't change anything.

then your post might have a rational point.

However as you know quite well, as it's in posts 14 and 21 JUST ABOVE, I've made exactly that point

One must either assert a belief is true or untrue. That's bullshit. One can claim, as a pragmatist might, that some questions are irrelevant due to a lack of any actual consequences that depend on the statement's truth or falsity. Or as an empiricist, one might decline to make any assertion of truth or falsity, but rather to making limited claims to the existence or non-existence of evidence.

You attempt to define away the existence of agnosticism by adopting your own working definition of "atheism".

Very few serious people who seriously think on these things will agree with you. I don't.

And are now off on a tangent with no relevance to what I said.

Along with that, you are utterly clueless about the difference between the underlying truth of a claim or belief (which, if properly defined, IS either true or false), and the likelihood that we assign to a claim being true based on the evidence we actually have. Your understanding of empiricism really needs some improvement before I waste any more time on you.

Try again.

Does your understanding of truth permit these three categories of knowledge?

Simple question. It's a yes or no. I expect you won't answer it.

the difference between the underlying truth of a claim, and how we evaluate it, and I'll answer your question. Because without demonstrating that, my answer would be meaningless to you.

Are you even capable of that? If so, show me I'm not wasting my time here.

Do you not know whether or not you believe that "indeterminate" is a valid category of knowledge?

Or do you seriously expect me to believe that your ability to answer a simple and straightforward question somehow depends on you and I establishing, right here, the one true understanding of truth and human belief? The one answer that philosophers and men have struggled with since ancient Greece?

Okay. There is a stable reality and the truth of a claim is judged by how well it accords with that reality.

Ten-to-one says you still won't answer my simple question.

of a claim being true or false (Notice I did not say "know"...do you even understand why?).

Nevertheless, a properly defined claim IS either true or false.

Do you even understand this issue well enough to know that I've answered your question the best that it can be answered? And more.

"I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of extraterrestrial life."

It meets the requirement of being true or false, provided of course that it represents the speaker's true belief.

So, is it a "properly defined claim"?


(Note: in strict scientific parlance claims are limited and specific. The claim here would be limited to saying only that "evidence for extraterrestrial life does not exist". Period. No other claims allowed, i.e. claiming that extraterrestrial life does not exist would be unscientific. Scientific claims are limited to claims about evidence.)

with meta claims. A very elementary mistake.

Try again.

End of claim regarding the existence or non-existence of God.

From Wiki-Pedia:

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of God, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Why, because no proof for the claims can be offered. Hence - no belief.

Unlike theists and non-theists who clearly believe one way or another in the absence of proof.

...which Wikipedia makes a nod to with that "unknown or" insertion into the otherwise correct definition to acknowledge that is in fact what hordes of clueless people mean when they use the word.

"Why, because no proof for the claims can be offered. Hence - no belief. "

Agnosticism began with TH Huxley. It is not the position that "I don't know whether there is a god or not" but the opinion that no-one can know whether there is a god or not, on the grounds that knowledge is based on evidence and there can be no evidence that would support either theism or atheism. (I'm inclined to ask how the agnostic knows all that -- on the basis of what evidence? -- but never mind.) Thus, to an agnostic, both theists and atheists are irrational.

My great-grandmother was an agnostic. I think she read Huxley in a first edition.

So-called "agnosticism" that takes the position that it is impossible to have knowledge about god is fundamentally at odds with logic and reason. Many, many people claim that god is such that it IS possible to have knowledge about him. For the agnostic to claim that god is not like that is also to claim knowledge about the nature of god-knowledge which they claim is impossible to have.

eom

Is at odds with facts and reason, as was just explained very clearly to you.

eom

In post 16. If you don't get it, just admit that and be done with it. But I have no more time to waste on hand-waving and empty denials while you try to appear intellectually superior.

eom

...as a person who disbelieves something for lack of evidence? I certainly hope not, because that's a steaming pile of bullshit.

We can't prove that vampires don't exist, but I can say "Vampires don't exist" without some doddering self-important "agnostic vampirist" serving up that ridiculous "there's no evidence for either position" tripe. Why? Because on the issue of vampires, people understand the concept of certainty. They understand that X legend has existed for Y centuries, towards which believers have yielded Z evidence. They understand the value of Z is so minute that it is simply not worth devoting a moment's time defending the improbable existence of vampires.

They understand that it is fucking dishonest to claim the positive and negative propositions concerning the existence of vampires are equally reasonable.

eom

that you posed in post 19. How is withholding belief in the absence of convincing affirmative evidence irrational? Because that's all I do as an atheist.

Try again.

eom

"How Is A Lack Of Facts At Odds With Logic And Reason?"

And now you're saying that belief is based on a lack of facts, and is irrational (i.e. At odds with logic and reason).

Everyone else here can see that you're just chasing your own tail. Maybe one day you will, too.