the age of the earth

[blazerboy30]

if you want to argue over semantics of atheist/agnostic it's not a very interesting topic.

in practice people who call themselves atheists generally allow for the possibility that some form of higher power exists, since they don't claim to know everything. that is my position, the position of dawkins, harris etc.

what we do claim is that the evidence theists present does not constitute a good reason to believe in god. that's what these threads are about.

So you're actually agnostic. Gotcha. It's much hipper to claim you're "atheist". It sounds much cooler.

 

[blazerboy30]

when did i do that?

In your original post:

any nutjobbers here think that dinosaurs are a hoax from god to weed out the nonbelievers?

im not even an atheist! you crack me up man wtf

Thank you.

 

[bluefrog]

So you're actually agnostic. Gotcha. It's much hipper to claim you're "atheist". It sounds much cooler.

It's silly to hold people to some dictionary defined set of beliefs. You'd find a wide range of views by people who identified themselves as atheist, Catholic or Buddhist. You sound like some religious authority needlessly pinning labels on people.

 

[blazerboy30]

It's silly to hold people to some dictionary defined set of beliefs. You'd find a wide range of views by people who identified themselves as atheist, Catholic or Buddhist. You sound like some religious authority needlessly pinning labels on people.

Did you read this and many other religious-related threads on this board? Have a read. It will be clear who is "needlessly pinning labels on people". Hell, read the first post in the thread:

any nutjobbers here think that dinosaurs are a hoax from god to weed out the nonbelievers?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Did you read this and many other religious-related threads on this board? Have a read. It will be clear who is "needlessly pinning labels on people". Hell, read the first post in the thread:

The "nutjobbers" comment seems to have upset you. What are your thoughts on dinosaurs?

 

[blazerboy30]

The "nutjobbers" comment seems to have upset you.

No, the hypocrites in these threads are what get annoying.

What are your thoughts on dinosaurs?

Silly question, but they seem pretty cool. Why do you ask?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Silly question, but they seem pretty cool. Why do you ask?

Just wondering if you were one of the nutjobbers.

 

[blazerboy30]

Just wondering if you were one of the nutjobbers.

It is just amusing to me to read one set of people, claiming they don't have beliefs, bashing on another group of people because they do have beliefs... when in reality, atheism is a belief system. It is stupidity and hypocritical.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It is just amusing to me to read one set of people, claiming they don't have beliefs, bashing on another group of people because they do have beliefs... when in reality, atheism is a belief system. It is stupidity and hypocritical.

I like to bash people irregardless of their beliefs. It just seems more fair that way.

You have funny shaped ears by the way.

 

[blazerboy30]

I like to bash people irregardless of their beliefs. It just seems more fair that way.

You have funny shaped ears by the way.

If you're going to bash me, at least speak the language at a reasonable level. It makes you look sillier than having mis-shaped ears!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

If you're going to bash me, at least speak the language at a reasonable level. It makes you look sillier than having mis-shaped ears!

LOL!

Oops!

Bastard!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

In your original post:

so joking about dinosaur conspiracy theorists means that i am an atheist?

too funny man

 

[magnifier661]

so joking about dinosaur conspiracy theorists means that i am an atheist?

too funny man

I'm gonna say that people that believe in evolution can still believe in God. I will not refute that.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I'm gonna say that people that believe in evolution can still believe in God. I will not refute that.

i am in this group, oh wait, i mean, im an atheist!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

It is just amusing to me to read one set of people, claiming they don't have beliefs, bashing on another group of people because they do have beliefs.

so if you dont believe in unicorns, its hypocritical to make fun of people who do. because not believing in unicorns is a belief too. right?

 

[blazerboy30]

so if you dont believe in unicorns, its hypocritical to make fun of people who do. because not believing in unicorns is a belief too. right?

You're still so confused about the difference between:

a) The theory or belief that God does not exist.
and
b) one who is not committed to believing in the existence God

One is atheism, one is agnostic.

Why is this simple logic so difficult to follow?

 

[RR7]

why derail a thread with a semantics argument instead of just contributing to the thread?

 

[blazerboy30]

why derail a thread with a semantics argument instead of just contributing to the thread?

Right because the thread was right on track from the beginning. Sorry to interrupt the bashing of those "nutjobs" that have faith or beliefs. Carry on.

 

[crowTrobot]

You're still so confused about the difference between:

a) The theory or belief that God does not exist.
and
b) one who is not committed to believing in the existence God

One is atheism, one is agnostic.

Why is this simple logic so difficult to follow?

maybe because you're dead wrong.

 

[crowTrobot]

Sorry to interrupt the bashing of those "nutjobs" that have faith or beliefs.

why should anyone respect a belief that is trivial to see is empirically false?

 

[blazerboy30]

maybe because you're dead wrong.

You're also having trouble with basic logic. Take it up with Merriam and Webster. It comes across so silly arguing that you're right when the definition says you're wrong.

Your whole argument of "strong" and "weak" is just a flaming bag, lacking logic. Somebody has a "strong" apathy in the existence of God? Or a "weak" indifference?

 

[3RA1N1AC]

i believe in unicorns, those uni-horned beasts have unique horns.

are there any nutjobbers out there that dont believe in unicorns?

 

[TripTango]

You're also having trouble with basic logic. Take it up with Merriam and Webster. It comes across so silly arguing that you're right when the definition says you're wrong.

Your whole argument of "strong" and "weak" is just a flaming bag, lacking logic. Somebody has a "strong" apathy in the existence of God? Or a "weak" indifference?

You are free to use "negative" and "positive" atheism, if you don't like the words strong and weak.

Regardless, they are both valid and well-understood, and neither one of them implies apathy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

 

[crowTrobot]

You're also having trouble with basic logic. Take it up with Merriam and Webster. It comes across so silly arguing that you're right when the definition says you're wrong.

M&W online happens to have both modern definitions with the more general listed first

athe·ism noun

a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?show=0&t=1327644041

also see

Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

in any case i'm not concerned with what webster or wiki says about definitions. what's concerning is you are going out of your way to use an unnecessarily strict definition of atheism, not subscribed to by atheists themselves, in order to enable your straw man of atheism being a belief system.

also FWIW in terms of strict semantics you're using an incorrect definition of agnosticism.

In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist

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

so someone who is indifferent or simply undecided is technically not an agnostic.

 

[Denny Crane]

Merriam seriously regrets drafting Webster.

 

[blazerboy30]

M&W online happens to have both modern definitions with the more general listed first

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?show=0&t=1327644041

also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

in any case i'm not concerned with what webster or wiki says about definitions. what's concerning is you are going out of your way to use an unnecessarily strict definition of atheism, not subscribed to by atheists themselves, in order to enable your straw man of atheism being a belief system.

also FWIW in terms of strict semantics you're using an incorrect definition of agnosticism.


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

so someone who is indifferent or simply undecided is technically not an agnostic.

You mean wiki links that have been written by people who want to have the meaning of words changed so that it fits what they want to call themselves?

You saying you're an atheist because you are indifferent about the belief in a God is like a Christian saying he doesn't believe in God or Jesus. It just doesn't make sense, except to the "nutjob" that wants an added meaning to a previously defined word and set of beliefs.

Regardless, I'm with crazy Unicorn-guy. They're pretty cool.

 

[crowTrobot]

You saying you're an atheist because you are indifferent about the belief in a God is like a Christian saying he doesn't believe in God or Jesus.

i'm certainly not indifferent. i think the existence of god as conceptualized by most humans is highly improbable. but that doesn't mean i should be lumped with people who believe there is no possibility any god exists. that doesn't describe what i think.

the trouble is people have an entire spectrum of views about the probability of any particular definition of god you specify, and locking the definitions of atheism and theism to those with absolute belief and calling everyone else an agnostic doesn't usefully describe the situation.

in practice very few people who lack belief in god would claim it is a fact that no possible god exists (maybe maris). most people who lack belief in god do so because they think there is no evidence for god, or because they reject the evidence presented by theists. there is no biased systematic belief or faith involved in that.

It just doesn't make sense, except to the "nutjob" that wants an added meaning to a previously defined word and set of beliefs.

i don't recall what was said in the rest of the thread, but the nutjob comment in the OP doesn't refer to christians. it refers specifically to people who believe the earth is young, and it would be used regardless of what motivated that belief. however you define it there is no parallel whatsoever between atheism and the outright rejection of blatantly obvious empirical truth.

 

[magnifier661]

I can respect that crow. I can't call u a nutjob as certain atheist call creationist but jobs.

 

[MARIS61]

I can respect that crow. I can't call u a nutjob as certain atheist call creationist but jobs.

There are 2 "t"'s in "butt".

 

[magnifier661]

There are 2 "t"'s in "butt".

Damn iphone auto correct! How ironic!