Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pretty sure mordant was referring to theists, and possibly Mystic specifically in this case, when mentioning sloppy thinking.
I could be mistaken myself, but that would be the reason he mentions that it's semantic among atheists, but not so much when conversing with theists.
[sigh] yes that is what I was doing. I was replying to Mystic, who was suggesting that our own definition of our own label is somehow a lie. I was not aware that he lifted that definition from someone else. And so to my mind the sloppy thinking was Mystics, which surprised me, because it is the same sloppy thinking we ordinarily see from far more conservative theists.
[sigh] yes that is what I was doing. I was replying to Mystic, who was suggesting that our own definition of our own label is somehow a lie. I was not aware that he lifted that definition from someone else. And so to my mind the sloppy thinking was Mystics, which surprised me, because it is the same sloppy thinking we ordinarily see from far more conservative theists.
I apologize. It appeared much more aggressive out of context (or in the wrong context).
[sigh] yes that is what I was doing. I was replying to Mystic, who was suggesting that our own definition of our own label is somehow a lie. I was not aware that he lifted that definition from someone else. And so to my mind the sloppy thinking was Mystics, which surprised me, because it is the same sloppy thinking we ordinarily see from far more conservative theists.
I take no offense at the sloppy thinking jab, mordant, because it isn't true. I was just poking fun at the stupid semantic terpsichory over atheism
Firstly thank you for mentioning Agnostics in your thread heading, it's bad enough we get second billing in our Religion and Spirituality sub-category but in addition we don't get mentioned separately from Atheists in thread headers very often.
The only thread I ever started in the Christianity forum was a non-provocative one asking about any potential "Holy Lands" located in North America.
I do challenge Christians acting decisively Un-Christian on occasion, the latest was calling out people who not only did not take issue with a board moderator named Woodrow Li liberally using the term "Sheeple" to describe certain individuals but actually rallied behind Woodrow and praised his thoughts and sentiments. If you care to view the exchange below is the link to the page where I first draw them down, scroll to bottom of page, exchange starts with post #90.
I read the thread you referenced and I think it's a frivolous argument, "sheeple" is a perfectly acceptable term when referring to those who follow blindly, doesn't necessarily just apply to the religious. And as to the OP questions, I used to participate in the Christianity forum, first as a raving lunatic Christian, then as a Universalist, and finally as an agnostic/atheist. I find it more than futile to argue with these hard heads, I was once one of them and I understand their fight to be right, after all they have nothing to stand on but faith.
Looking back on the 45+ years I spent as a Christian, it is sad to me now to see these "sheeple" desperately clinging to their beliefs, all the while knowing and doubting in the back of their minds that what they are preaching is nothing more than wishful thinking. I can say that because I was one of them and I know what goes through your mind.
Most religious people are just a feather-light away from being agnostics. But they would never, ever admit that. It's all some people have to hold on to so I cannot and do not blame them, I blame those who teach and preach it like it's the truth. Lord I could go on and on about the things I have seen over the years being an evangelical Christian for so long, but I digress.
I was "sheeple" until I started to question and doubt and C-D had a lot to do with my de-conversion. That's not a bad thing, it made me open up my mind which I had never done before because I was so afraid of questioning. Afraid because of the threat of hell, I lived in fear all those years because of the hell threat and because I was big time sinner, never believing I measured up to go to heaven so I was extremely hard on myself. I felt so inadequate compared to all my religious relatives, who could pray endlessly, knew the bible in and out, and spoke in tongues at the drop of a hat. As a child, I once was being coerced and prayed over to speak in tongues, it's a horrible memory and I could not utter one word.
Now in defense of the religious, there's a certain amount of comfort and a feeling of being special when several people surround you and lay their hands on you to pray for you. I never felt like anything was happening but it was nice to be the center of attention. Other than that, nothing good came from my experiences. I'm much happier now as an agnostic/atheist, free from the fear and dogma and can live without the self criticism and self-loathing because I felt so inadequate.
I'll be honest, I still don't know how some of my relatives and acquaintances managed to speak in tongues at will, it used to give me goosebumps and not in a good way. But according to the bible, you are not supposed to speak in tongues unless there is someone in the room to interpret it. I still don't get it. Just gibberish I guess, but it sounded for real. That's one thing that I suppose will always baffle me.
I can speak for both sides, and I can honestly say that I was definitely "sheeple". I had no reason to question anything for a long time until I reached my teenage years, and then it was more rebellion than questioning or doubting. So the word sheeple is not derogatory, it's a pretty accurate description of people who follow blindly, like I did. I don't understand why that would offend an atheist anyway, it definitely does not apply to atheists. The religious don't care whether you're in their corner or not because after all, we are heathens!
[sigh] yes that is what I was doing. I was replying to Mystic, who was suggesting that our own definition of our own label is somehow a lie. I was not aware that he lifted that definition from someone else. And so to my mind the sloppy thinking was Mystics, which surprised me, because it is the same sloppy thinking we ordinarily see from far more conservative theists.
Ah, well. If I was responding to Mystic slapping down a sloppy definition of agnostic when it was a sloppy definition (as distinct from the generally correct way informed atheists use it) then I owe Mystic an apology, too.
Yes, I see from your picture that you understand the usages and I apologize for my post.
talking about "words". Its why we are in this religious mess. Religious people, so emotionally attached to their view, or have an emotion (like forgiveness) as the start of a line of logic, that they must convolute meaning beyond all meaning. Both sides have "people" at the center and as such will have a number of different personality types expressing the belief that is held.
The notion of "sloppy" is a defensive mechanism and does expose the intention. But if we stick to basics question we can avoid all this word play. Regular people can get past sloppy in seconds. Fundyz will get stuck in a roundabout for a spell, maybe a life time.
"can anything never be known?" lol, that sounds funny, be that as it may, The answer is a belief statement. I would say it is a blind faith statement. wishy washy due to lack of "knowledge" is totally acceptable in many cases. When people use it as a weapon to force us to one side or another we should stand up and say "no, we don't have enough information to support your certainty." That "certainty", with no support, is not our fault. Its theirs.
Ah, well. If I was responding to Mystic slapping down a sloppy definition of agnostic when it was a sloppy definition (as distinct from the generally correct way informed atheists use it) then I owe Mystic an apology, too.
Yes, I see from your picture that you understand the usages and I apologize for my post.
[Sigh]...
Quote:
Atheism:"A disbelief or lack of belief in God" Agnosticism:"Believing that nothing is known or can be known about the existence of a God or gods"
Those are the definitions I posted and as far as I'm aware, they are correct.
Am I missing something?
Everyone calling these definitions "sloppy" with absolutely no justification is rather disturbing.
Eh??
I hope you're just trying to be funny but I think you should stick to your usual routine of being all serious, condescending and judgmental.
This saddens me very much. I have nothing but love and respect for you and the difficult journey you have had out of fundamentalism, DOTL. How have I offended you?
Those are the definitions I posted and as far as I'm aware, they are correct.
Am I missing something?
Everyone calling these definitions "sloppy" with absolutely no justification is rather disturbing.
Ok. I lost the plot. Mystic's definitions were close enough and so were yours. So I don't now know what he was beefing about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
