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.
The problem I have with this reasoning is that those atheists who simply do not believe are not vocal, so we do not know how many there are.
And not believing a claim does not automatically mean one has considered the logical implications of a lack of belief, nor is there a need to do this. Their word games is also exposed as bogus because we do not need to redefine anything to avoid the burden of proof, we have already met that burden.
To pretend otherwise is either a lack of rational thinking, or it is ironic dishonesty.
I agree all that. We dn't know how many Silent atheists there are, nor the vocal ones, really. But the rationale is the same - we are not persuaded of the existence of any gods nor is the burden of disproof on us, though giving a good reason why the evidence for a god is not persuasive is something we should do, if the evidence is presented.
Why did you decide to derail a thread about "Moral obligations for atheists" with your favorite opinion unrelated to "Moral obligations for atheists?"
There are numerous threads of conversation within the many posts here and I am RESPONDING to one of them. That is how discussions flow. Atheists have a moral responsibility to NOT misrepresent theism so as to make their atheist beliefs seem factual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
This thread is NOT about Mystic's favorite opinion. You're as far off topic as he is.
Almost all that exists within this forum are expressions of opinions, so why you always single out mine for criticism is something you should examine yourself about.
Your first two sentences are typical of his MO and then he will drag you into a countless number of posts of you trying to explain what he claims you are saying is wrong. I personally got trapped in that and there is no way you can successfully explain to him that you never meant or said what he claims you did. I ended up putting him on ignore after he followed me to different threads repeating his false claims. And even after I sent him a private message explaining my position he posted that I put him on ignore because I was running away from the subject he kept claiming I had been talking about.
Everyone is best to not respond to his game.
I have seen this before also with him. I wasn't sure if it is a second language thing or if it is just deliberate obfuscation. Sounds like the latter.
Why did you decide to derail a thread about "Moral obligations for atheists" with your favorite opinion unrelated to "Moral obligations for atheists?"
I counted 4 current threads that have ended up on this same old 13 yr argument without end. One started by Mystic, 3 derailed by him. There are likely even more current ones I haven't seen , plus no doubt numerous ones only weeks old. I now understand what posters meant when they talked about spam.
I counted 4 current threads that have ended up on this same old 13 yr argument without end. One started by Mystic, 3 derailed by him. There are likely even more current ones I haven't seen, plus no doubt numerous ones only weeks old. I now understand what posters meant when they talked about spam.
Why this focus on MY opinions being expressed in the forum as derails or spam when the other expressed opinions are not considered such? Who sent you to the forum to ferret out my opinions for scrutiny? Why mine? Are you angling for a moderator slot? You don't like my opinions so does that mean they should not be expressed here? Everyone here is expressing their opinions and putting them forward on every topic. Why is it somehow inappropriate when I do so? Who the hell do you think you are to attack my opinions as spam? They are my religious and spiritual beliefs and opinions being expressed in a religion and spirituality forum which is what everyone else is doing here.
Why this focus on MY opinions being expressed in the forum as derails or spam when the other expressed opinions are not considered such? Who sent you to the forum to ferret out my opinions for scrutiny? Why mine? Are you angling for a moderator slot? You don't like my opinions so does that mean they should not be expressed here? Everyone here is expressing their opinions and putting them forward on every topic. Why is it somehow inappropriate when I do so? Who the hell do you think you are to attack my opinions as spam? They are my religious and spiritual beliefs and opinions being expressed in a religion and spirituality forum which is what everyone else is doing here.
Well said. Thank God for being who He is, allowing us to have free will and free speech. Let no man take from us what God has given.
I get ya, and you are correct. I am a bit of a jerk, I get that.
Again, for me, its not really about how people say it. We are all guilty of human frailties to a degree. Thats why I am big on actually putting in what we know to see who is doing what. Who is really a nice person and dead wrong.
One of my base claims (I call axioms) is "lacking belief" because we are not sure what the person said is fine and dandy. In fact, its really is the best default position.
Its not best "default" to argue people from that position. What I mean by that is it not "moral" to not go and learn about what a person is saying and yet still tell them "I lack belief in what you say" or "Thats an assertion you have to prove."
Lets put something in there to demonstrate the difference. For example, I say A^2 + B^2=C^2.
When a person tells me, that is arguing for the point of "lack of belief in it", that what I said is "assertion and you have prove that", I am sorry eylnn, at what point to we get to say "enough, its not an "assertion", you don't know what you are talking about?"
Remember now, I am not talking about the regular person that says "I lack belief in that because I don't know.". And they stop right there. I am fine with with that type. Its not "moral" to tell people, "The Pythagoras' Theorem is plausible but I don't don't see any credible evidence for people to think that. You are "enabling" believers in it by telling them what it actually means."
I don't think you are a jerk, Arach.
I don't think too many atheists who wish to make a proclamation would say, "I lack a belief in God because I don't know." Just like a theist who wishes to make proclamations wouldn't say, "I believe in God because I don't know."
I don't think too many atheists who wish to make a proclamation would say, "I lack a belief in God because I don't know." Just like a theist who wishes to make proclamations wouldn't say, "I believe in God because I don't know."
You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.
If I say I'm an agnostic atheist I would explain it as I lack sufficient evidence to believe in any Gods (atheists ) and I don't believe we can ever know if a God exists or not (agnostic)
That is why your statement in a lack of belief in a God because I don't know is not a good statement. A theist can say I believe in a God and I don't know if it's true would be an agnostic theist. A gnostic theist would say they believe in a God because the know God exists and a gnostic atheist can say they don't believe in a God because they know he does NOT exist.
At one time, long ago I thought an agnostic was someone who lacked a belief in a God and an atheist was one who believed there were no Gods.
If I say I'm an agnostic atheist I would explain it as I lack sufficient evidence to believe in any Gods (atheists ) and I don't believe we can ever know if a God exists or not (agnostic)
That is why your statement in a lack of belief in a God because I don't know is not a good statement. A theist can say I believe in a God and I don't know if it's true would be an agnostic theist. A gnostic theist would say they believe in a God because the know God exists and a gnostic atheist can say they don't believe in a God because they know he does NOT exist.
At one time, long ago I thought an agnostic was someone who lacked a belief in a God and an atheist was one who believed there were no Gods.
I was just going by what Arach was saying. He proposed that those kinds of statements from a regular person. Are regular people agnostics?
I was just going by what Arach was saying. He proposed that those kinds of statements from a regular person. Are regular people agnostics?
Arach is on my ignore list so I don't read what he has to say.
I think a lot of people are agnostic. I accept the position of any person who gives their stand and don't attempt to provide their stand on the subject if they have not stated it themselves.
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.
