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.
I've tried to learn your lessons about how not to aggravate others, but in this respect as well, I'm just not quite as able as you. Try as I might. And thanks for so often mentioning my Ten Things. Might actually cause someone to think about them a bit more than otherwise...
Don't waste your time using me as an exemplar for anything. I am trying to temper my tit-for-tat responses to a more acceptable level to avoid infecting the forum with more adversity than it already seems prone to. The aggravaters will not stop and I will not either since their so-called logic is puerile and grammar schoolyard level as are your attempts to apply your Ten Assertions to the nexus of science, religion, and spirituality.
Don't waste your time using me as an exemplar for anything. I am trying to temper my tit-for-tat responses to a more acceptable level to avoid infecting the forum with more adversity than it already seems prone to. The aggravaters will not stop and I will not either since their so-called logic is puerile and grammar schoolyard level as are your attempts to apply your Ten Assertions to the nexus of science, religion, and spirituality.
For the benefit of Tzaphkiel I would offer the same parallel for his processing.
...
.
Hers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
"Why the need to twist sentences?"
The quote that i posted, is a direct quote from the sticky in the Atheist forum.
and yet so many atheists on the forum are confused about that. they argue and take issue even with the sticky note in the atheism forum.
No. I can't recall any that have a problem with it. Mind, a lot of people think that 'agnosticism' is a logically reasonable version of atheism. I did myself once. I have no idea where this idea came from, but it seems to be universal or very prevalent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Just which atheist other than Arach Angle have problems with the definition in FAQ ?
Do you remember Gabfest? Didn't he (wearing his atheist camouflage) have a problem with it? He refused to accept this (holistic) definition of atheism as he wasn't invited to vote on it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-16-2021 at 06:10 PM..
Atheism is a very narrow position about belief in deities. It is the lack of belief in ANY deity.
“Atheist” literally means “without god” and the opposite term is “Theist”. A theist believes in one or more gods, an atheist believes in no gods at all.
I have to admit I don't see why any atheist would take issue with this formal CD definition.
Atheism is a very narrow position about belief in deities. It is the lack of belief in ANY deity.
“Atheist” literally means “without god” and the opposite term is “Theist”. A theist believes in one or more gods, an atheist believes in no gods at all.
I have to admit I don't see why any atheist would take issue with this formal CD definition.
I understand the theist urge to define atheism as a belief system. It bothers them that they must take so much on faith, and that the other side presents itself as the sensible POV. "No evidence, no belief" , as opposed to " no evidence, believe on faith anyway". So they wish to label atheism as a "faith based belief" also, to assuage their feelings of being the ones accused of believing without evidence.
Just which atheist other than Arach Angle have problems with the definition in FAQ ?
I don't have a problem with the definition. Never have. Talk about altering what is said ...
Like you have a problem with people pushing a statement of belief about god as something it is not, I have a problem with people that push "lack of belief" as something it is not. It is not a standard we judge beliefs by.
Yuur lack of belief is like a theist "lack of belief" in evolution. Yeah ... so what?
Oh right, I forgot ... lmao ... you can alter what I say, and its ok ... but if you think it happened to you ...look out below.
I understand the theist urge to define atheism as a belief system. It bothers them that they must take so much on faith, and that the other side presents itself as the sensible POV. "No evidence, no belief" , as opposed to " no evidence, believe on faith anyway". So they wish to label atheism as a "faith based belief" also, to assuage their feelings of being the ones accused of believing without evidence.
Its more about how people are expressing the belief, not the definition. Just like atheist say "I have no trouble with people that say I have faith.". I have no trouble with people that "lack belief".
But some "lack of belief" is being used as the standard to evaluate claims. Its being used as if it is enough evidence to dismiss any claim at all. theist do it with "I lack belief in evolution.".
How would it look when an atheist is doing the exact same thing.
I know, I know, the anti-religious activism gang isn't talking to me. But it had to be said.
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.
Do you remember Gabfest? Didn't he (wearing his atheist camouflage) have a problem with it? He refused to accept this (holistic) definition of atheism as he wasn't invited to vote on it.
