Wow, you LMA haters suck

[Minstrel]

The most widely used definition of atheism by atheists is not "thinking there is no god", it is simply not believing in a god. I know you may disagree with the semantics of atheist vs. agnostic and there is no real point debating it. I see things that would describe me as an "agnostic atheist" or a "weak atheist" and people who have a stong belief there is no god as "extreme atheists", "strong atheists" or "radical atheists" (radical atheists is a term coined by author Douglas Adams, here is a quote of his)


This is the best thing I can find right now to explain my opinion

"How can atheists say for sure there's no god?"

Most atheists don't assert that no gods exist; only a subset of all atheists are also "strong" or "positive" atheists. In fact, most atheists identify primarily by their lack of belief in gods, rather than the belief claim that none exist.

The terms "strong" and "weak" in this context are not referring to the level of fervor or conviction one has concerning atheism. They are indicative of whether or not the person is making a gnostic belief claim or not (see above).

Weak atheism makes no gnostic claim. It is simply the lack of belief in any god. Monotheists share the same lack of belief in gods, except for the one they do believe exists. Weak atheism is the de facto position of the majority of atheists today.

Strong atheism is weak atheism plus a gnostic belief claim: a strong atheist asserts with certainty that no gods exist.

All atheists are at least weak atheists; a subset of those are also strong atheists.

In my experience, most avowed atheists do tend to state things in terms of there being no god.

Even if it were true that most do not, I don't see a point to lumping agnostics and "strong" atheists together. Agnosticism and atheism work as solid terms for asserting a lack of belief/knowledge one way or the other (agnosticism) and a belief in no god (atheism). With theism being the belief in a god.

My feeling is that most atheists don't want to identify as agnostics because that asserts no position and most atheists want to combat theism. But I certainly have no research backing it up...it's just based on what I've observed.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

In my experience, most avowed atheists do tend to state things in terms of there being no god.

Even if it were true that most do not, I don't see a point to lumping agnostics and "strong" atheists together. Agnosticism and atheism work as solid terms for asserting a lack of belief/knowledge one way or the other (agnosticism) and a belief in no god (atheism). With theism being the belief in a god.

My feeling is that most atheists don't want to identify as agnostics because that asserts no position and most atheists want to combat theism. But I certainly have no research backing it up...it's just based on what I've observed.

Every atheist I have ever met would disagree with you on that, and thats about 25-30 that I know of. And I have talked to countless more on the great internet. Very few are actually strong atheists. The strong atheists aren't really ignorant either in my opinion. Is someone ignorant for saying they believe there are no unicorns in the universe when they can't prove it?

a belief in no god (atheism). With theism being the belief in a god.

Should be "no belief in a god" not "a belief in no god".

 

[Minstrel]

Every atheist I have ever met would disagree with you on that, and thats about 25-30 that I know of. And I have talked to countless more on the great internet.

I've interacted with just as many. The thing is, they may agree with the agnostic interpretation of atheism if you actually get them to discuss in length. But the immediate reactions they provide is more along the lines of "there isn't a god, how silly."

The strong atheists aren't really ignorant either in my opinion. Is someone ignorant for saying they believe there are no unicorns in the universe when they can't prove it?

Technically they are, though humans are generally wired to view the world empirically. If something happens repeatably, we call it knowledge. If we never see something, we call that knowledge. If we view "knowledge" as predictability, that's reasonable. It's reasonable to predict that we'll never encounter a god or a unicorn in the flesh, since no one ever has. But if by knowledge we mean a certainty, then we almost never have knowledge.

Should be "no belief in a god" not "a belief in no god".

I disagree. I think a much more coherent, consistent set of terms is theism (belief in a god), agnosticism (no belief one way or the other) and atheism (a belief in no god). Ultimately, terms only mean what the society agrees that they mean. If we used those terms, though, I think it would keep things much clearer. I don't see a conceptual benefit to combining the second two groups into one.

 

[oldguy]

Notice that I've edited nothing in this thread (and no other mod has, either). I am responding to posts where people seem to think that calling someone an asshole would be acceptable if they felt that the poster was being an asshole, or if the poster had attacked a Blazers' player.

Ed O.

If I understand things correctly, it IS ok to quote the alleged asshole, and say that their comment was asshole-ly. Just don't call them an asshole. Right?

Go Blazers

 

[andalusian]

Attacks against other posters are not allowed here, but attacks on players and their games are.

Nobody called anyone an asshole - so you are barking at the wrong tree. But, if you feel the need to give us a lesson about things that might happen - so be it.

 

[Minstrel]

If I understand things correctly, it IS ok to quote the alleged asshole, and say that their comment was asshole-ly. Just don't call them an asshole. Right?

As a principle, you are allowed to attack the post and not the poster. Of course, if you're trying to use that as a technicality to insult the poster, it can still be edited. The spirit of the rules is to argue civilly, and the spirit is what is upheld.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Isn't atheism based on ignorance as well? Thinking something is true (there being no god) without knowing all the facts.

I'm agnostic. Seems as though you may be as well, based on your post.

You could say the same thing with theism.

Isn't theism based on ignorance as well? Thinking something is true (there being a god) without knowing all the facts.

 

[BGrantFan]

You could say the same thing with theism.

Isn't theism based on ignorance as well? Thinking something is true (there being a god) without knowing all the facts.

Absolutely. I considered it assumed that theism is also based on faith and not fact. I have no issues with admitting that I don't know all the answers. I also don't feel that "atheism" vs. being "agnostic" is a matter of semantics. I think there are literal definitions, and the former is a belief (anti-deity, anti-religion, to point out two), while the latter is unknown, except to say 'I believe that I don't know whether or not a God or God-like entity exists". So, it is also a quasi-belief based on ignorance, but the agnostic person does not claim to know the answer.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I think that the "decision" made by LMA to not play for Team USA, as told to Jerry Colangelo, didn't involve anything about his mother.

Portland forward LaMarcus Aldridge has dropped out of next week's Team USA training camp here, and any Olympic hopes he might have for 2012 have been severely damaged.

"He just decided that he didn't want to do it,'' USA Basketball chairman Jerry Colangelo said in a phone interview Wednesday morning with FanHouse. "He's not going to come.''

With Aldridge not giving what appears to be a satisfactory reason for not wanting to be part of this summer's World Championships team, Colangelo said his chances of remaining on the roster for the 2012 Olympics are affected.

"It's not a positive in this case,'' said Colangelo, later adding that you still "never close the door.''

"Not giving a satisfactory reason" to the head of Team USA seemed like (and still does, frankly) ample reason to question whether LMA wanted to take the next step to being an elite player in the league. If LMA didn't want to tell Colangelo about his sick mother (which would have at least kept him in contention for a spot), that's his business. But it was another in a long chain of events that pretty conclusively show that LMA isn't interested in playing Team USA ball in the summer, which many in here would say is a prerequisite for becoming an elite player in the League (Roy being one of the notable, and few, exceptions).

 

[oldguy]

As a principle, you are allowed to attack the post and not the poster. Of course, if you're trying to use that as a technicality to insult the poster, it can still be edited. The spirit of the rules is to argue civilly, and the spirit is what is upheld.

I guess I'm still confused then. I've seen Ed defend the right to call what someone says stupid, but not to call the poster stupid. Isn't calling what someone says stupid insulting to the poster? How is that different than calling what they said asshole-ly?

Go Blazers

 

[THE HCP]

I don't see the correlation with playing for Team USA and becoming an elite player. I'm glad he and Brandon haven't to be honest. Less chance of injury.

 

[Ed O]

I guess I'm still confused then. I've seen Ed defend the right to call what someone says stupid, but not to call the poster stupid. Isn't calling what someone says stupid insulting to the poster? How is that different than calling what they said asshole-ly?

Smart people can say stupid things. I do it all the time.

I don't understand the source of your confusion. We should all be posting with good intentions, and claiming that a statement is stupid is significantly less offensive than calling another poster (or a group of posters with whom you disagree) an asshole.

Ed O.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't see the correlation with playing for Team USA and becoming an elite player. I'm glad he and Brandon haven't to be honest. Less chance of injury.

I see a correlation, but not a causation. In fact, I'd say the causation is reversed from the way Brian presented it. It's not that playing for Team USA makes you elite. It's that elite players and rising young players are invited to play for Team USA.

So, the very fact that Aldridge was invited is really all that matters. If players who play for Team USA correlate well with the elite players in the NBA, then what it means is that the Team USA selectors are good at picking talent. And they picked Aldridge. Whether he plays for the team or not does not magically confer eliteness. Playing competitive basketball can increase one's ability, but I don't see that Team USA basketball is any more competitive than NBA basketball, in terms of developing one's game.

 

[THE HCP]

They get more out of the practices then the games I'm sure.

 

[jlprk]

We should all be posting with good intentions, and claiming that a statement is stupid is significantly less offensive than calling another poster (or a group of posters with whom you disagree) an asshole.

So the rule is, I can't call one or more people with whom I disagree an asshole or assholes.

I agree with all you assholes.

And I won't name any specific names. You listening, Ed?

 

[jlprk]

"He just decided that he didn't want to do it,'' USA Basketball chairman Jerry Colangelo said in a phone interview Wednesday morning with FanHouse. "He's not going to come.'' With Aldridge not giving what appears to be a satisfactory reason for not wanting to be part of this summer's World Championships team, Colangelo said his chances of remaining on the roster for the 2012 Olympics are affected.

You have given a good refutation of Aldridge's revisionist history.

Isn't atheism based on ignorance as well? Thinking something is true (there being no god) without knowing all the facts.

Then why do atheists know more religious details than religious people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html

 

[BGrantFan]

Then why do atheists know more religious details than religious people?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html

That has literally nothing to do with the substance of what I posted. How does knowing a lot about a belief based in ignorance relate to what I posted?

 

[BGrantFan]

I think that the "decision" made by LMA to not play for Team USA, as told to Jerry Colangelo, didn't involve anything about his mother.


"Not giving a satisfactory reason" to the head of Team USA seemed like (and still does, frankly) ample reason to question whether LMA wanted to take the next step to being an elite player in the league. If LMA didn't want to tell Colangelo about his sick mother (which would have at least kept him in contention for a spot), that's his business. But it was another in a long chain of events that pretty conclusively show that LMA isn't interested in playing Team USA ball in the summer, which many in here would say is a prerequisite for becoming an elite player in the League (Roy being one of the notable, and few, exceptions).

So you're back to questioning Aldridge because he didn't tell Colangelo about his mom's breast cancer, and how he wanted to be close to her this summer? I hope Colangelo feels like shit now, because frankly, the health of LA's mom is none of his fucking business, and was none of his fucking business earlier this summer. Colangelo is no better than the jackholish comments on this board questioning LA's commitment without knowing all of the information. I'm sure LA was a bit more concerned about his mom's health than he was making Jerry Colangelo (and message board clowns) know the reason for his decision.

That you continue to raise this issue says a lot about you, IMO. You developed an opinion on Aldridge without knowing the facts, yet you treated your opinion as fact. Now that more information is available, you continue to try and excuse your own ignorance.

 

[jlprk]

It's totally Colangelo's business, just as it's an employer's business to know why his employee wants to take a week off. If your mother has cancer, Sonny, you'd better make it your boss' business or you won't have a spot saved for you when you return, and that's what has happened to Aldridge.

Besides, I question whether that was the real reason Aldridge took the summer off. I think he just wanted to vacation. He came up with this reason months later. Maybe she really has cancer, but this wasn't the reason or he would have told his erstwhile boss Colangelo.

Isn't atheism based on ignorance as well? Thinking something is true (there being no god) without knowing all the facts.

So I responded that this week's survey proves they know more religious facts than anyone else, and you said that's irrelevant.

 

[OSUBlazerfan]

LMA still is a pussy

 

[BGrantFan]

It's totally Colangelo's business, just as it's an employer's business to know why his employee wants to take a week off. If your mother has cancer, Sonny, you'd better make it your boss' business or you won't have a spot saved for you when you return, and that's what has happened to Aldridge.

Besides, I question whether that was the real reason Aldridge took the summer off. I think he just wanted to vacation. He came up with this reason months later. maybe she really has cancer, but this wasn't the reason or he would have told his erstwhile boss Colangelo.

How is Colangelo Aldridge's boss or employer? He was invited to a camp, and he declined for personal reasons that Jerry deemed not satisfactory at the time. If Colangelo still feels that way now, or if he is butthurt that Aldridge didn't tell him about his mom, that's his problem. If he is going to exclude Aldridge from a future at Team USA even after knowing about LaMarcus' mom (nice jab about her "maybe" having cancer, btw), I say fuck him and fuck Team USA.

So I responded that this week's survey proves they know more religious facts than anyone else, and you said that's irrelevant.

To the substance of my post, yes, it is irrelevant. I'm sorry you can't grasp that. Atheists and apparently Mormons know a lot about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Who cares?

 

[BGrantFan]

LMA still is a pussy

I bet you got a rush of adrenaline when you wrote this. Did it sound tough in your head as you typed it?

 

[jlprk]

To the substance of my post, yes, it is irrelevant. I'm sorry you can't grasp that.

You mean I have to read your post? You win. Anything but that.

 

[BGrantFan]

You mean I have to read your post? You win. Anything but that.

This explains the odd tangents that you seem to showcase in most of your posts. I do appreciate you trying a different variation of "I'm too good to read your posts, but I'm going to comment on it anyway because I really do care" routine.

 

[BrianFromWA]

So you're back to questioning Aldridge because he didn't tell Colangelo about his mom's breast cancer, and how he wanted to be close to her this summer? I hope Colangelo feels like shit now, because frankly, the health of LA's mom is none of his fucking business, and was none of his fucking business earlier this summer. Colangelo is no better than the jackholish comments on this board questioning LA's commitment without knowing all of the information. I'm sure LA was a bit more concerned about his mom's health than he was making Jerry Colangelo (and message board clowns) know the reason for his decision.

That you continue to raise this issue says a lot about you, IMO. You developed an opinion on Aldridge without knowing the facts, yet you treated your opinion as fact. Now that more information is available, you continue to try and excuse your own ignorance.

"Continue to raise the issue?" I refuted (one time, not necessarily "continuing" with actual reports and quotes the reasoning that people should feel like shit for some reason because LMA didn't attend the USA camp (again) after being invited, now that he says the reason was to be with his ailing mom. My only opinion about the issue was that LMA didn't give a good reason for not wanting to be there (because I'd read it in the quoted report), and that all he had to say 4 months ago was "guys, I'd love to be there, but Mom's got cancer". Or, "Sorry, Mr. Colangelo, I'd really like to be part of the team, but I need to take this summer off to be with my sick mom". Instead, he "didn't give a satisfactory reason". Would that have impacted her care somehow? Telling people about his reason for not being there is mutually exclusive with her getting better? Then why's it coming out now?
The "facts" are:
1) LMA didn't go to the Team USA camp, even after being told that it would negatively impact his chances for being invited for the 2012 team.
2) When told it would negatively impact his chances for the team, he told Colangelo he "just didn't want to do it."
3) LMA's mom and her health is neither my, nor Colangelo's business. I pray she makes a full recovery, but it's none of my business.

Now that I've demonstrated that I know the facts, and you're placing ignorance on the wrong head, I'm going to drop some opinion.

It's totally LMA's call to make his decision private or not. It's totally LMA's decision whether he wants to rest up in the summers, and it's totally his decision to not play for Team USA. He's a big boy, and doesn't need to listen to message board jackholes and their opinions. If he ever wanted to play for Team USA, though, he didn't (imho) make the right decision not to tell the President of Team USA. And that was my point. I don't feel bad at all for stating my opinion (either today or 4 months ago) that blowing off Colangelo showed he didn't want to play for Team USA. I certainly don't think that qualifies as a "fact", like you assert.

 

[hasoos]

I'll pick agility and ability over brawn and brainless any-day. You people that compare him to a traditional 4 are ridiculous

There is no reason you can't have both. Why do you have to have one or the other according to you?

 

[BGrantFan]

"Continue to raise the issue?" I refuted (one time, not necessarily "continuing" with actual reports and quotes the reasoning that people should feel like shit for some reason because LMA didn't attend the USA camp (again) after being invited, now that he says the reason was to be with his ailing mom. My only opinion about the issue was that LMA didn't give a good reason for not wanting to be there (because I'd read it in the quoted report), and that all he had to say 4 months ago was "guys, I'd love to be there, but Mom's got cancer". Or, "Sorry, Mr. Colangelo, I'd really like to be part of the team, but I need to take this summer off to be with my sick mom". Instead, he "didn't give a satisfactory reason". Would that have impacted her care somehow? Telling people about his reason for not being there is mutually exclusive with her getting better? Then why's it coming out now?
The "facts" are:
1) LMA didn't go to the Team USA camp, even after being told that it would negatively impact his chances for being invited for the 2012 team.
2) When told it would negatively impact his chances for the team, he told Colangelo he "just didn't want to do it."
3) LMA's mom and her health is neither my, nor Colangelo's business. I pray she makes a full recovery, but it's none of my business.

Now that I've demonstrated that I know the facts, and you're placing ignorance on the wrong head, I'm going to drop some opinion.

It's totally LMA's call to make his decision private or not. It's totally LMA's decision whether he wants to rest up in the summers, and it's totally his decision to not play for Team USA. He's a big boy, and doesn't need to listen to message board jackholes and their opinions. If he ever wanted to play for Team USA, though, he didn't (imho) make the right decision not to tell the President of Team USA. And that was my point. I don't feel bad at all for stating my opinion (either today or 4 months ago) that blowing off Colangelo showed he didn't want to play for Team USA. I certainly don't think that qualifies as a "fact", like you assert.

I read enough of your posts on Aldridge/Team USA to know your position on it. Now that more information is available, you continue to drag up opinions (like Colangelo's) that were based in ignorance. If Colangelo still has the opinion that Aldridge's reason is not satisfactory, and blackballs him from Team USA, then he's an even bigger douchebag than I previously thought he was. I think him going public with his interpretation of Aldridge's reason was completely unnecessary as well. I would expect somebody with his experience to not cry to the media about Aldridge declining his invitation, and his opinion on the reason for it.

I actually lost a lot of respect for Colangelo because of your post, so I suppose that is a positive, and I did learn something, so I thank you.

 

[jlprk]

Yes, I'm too good to read your posts, but I'm going to comment on it anyway because...I really do care? This is going too far. Where did you get that part?

 

[BGrantFan]

There is no reason you can't have both. Why do you have to have one or the other according to you?

Because other than Karl Malone and Tim Duncan (who was really a center), which PFs have had both over the past 10 years? Fantasy basketball does not win titles. Finding players to fill specific roles does. If Oden can actually stay healthy, Aldridge is the perfect compliment to him.

 

[jlprk]

Aldridge handled the Worlds badly. Why oh why did we get rid of Zach? Oh yeah, so Aldridge could improve. And look at which one improved!