Not to add more fuel to the fire, but really, if you lads dislike DWD's threads, then stop posting in them.
I have always maintained that Darkwing Duck gives good thread.
Disagreeing with something that doesn't exist is like refusing to acknowledge the star wars prequels.
Reminds me of those people that claim there is a second Highlander movie.
<rolls eyes>
Or Matrix sequels.
That movie was so awesome. It'd be really cool if they made a sequel.
The Matrix sucked.
You know what you're doing. So does everyone else.
Exactly.
Disagreeing with something that doesn't exist is like refusing to acknowledge the star wars prequels.
Hence why you can have Atheists with belief and without belief if we don't peg the term to said condition. The case you mention would be the latter. However, there are well-documented cases of the former, one such example being in India, were an Atheist Cult used to exist (I'm unsure whether it still exists or not, however), men and women who, while they believed in the existence of gods, actively refused to follow them. They claimed belief, though not knowledge, yet had no gods. By the original definition of the words, they would be classified as Agnostic Atheists.
Words do not mean what the sum of their roots mean. That isn't how language works.
Words do not necessarily mean the sum of their root, but that does not mean they sometimes can; a woodcutter is someone or something that cuts wood.
However, my point, and thus the reason I specified it, was to use the terms as close as able to their original meaning, since nowadays these words carry a lot of baggage and interpretations that often lead to confusion. Since there seems to be a disagreement on which source to quote for their meaning, I thought the most sensible manner was to dissect the words into their base meanings. I do not claim those to be the absolute significants in any case, however.
There is no confusion.
The entire point of these semantic discussions of atheism/agnosticism everytime I've seen them, aside from spawning endless pages of vitriol for your amusement, is to pigeonhole atheists as just as dogmatic as theists and atheism as requiring just as much faith. Everyone claiming atheism is assumed to be claiming 100% certainty and thus can be ignored since they can't prove it. If they object, they're told they're actually agnostic, lumped in with people who are actually unsure (You know the ones who are closer to 50/50 than 99.99% sure) and ignored on that basis.
I do not believe that to be the case. But then again, this is in the field of personal interpretation.
Disagreeing with something that doesn't exist is like refusing to acknowledge the star wars prequels.
What prequels?
They're finally making the prequels? Awesome!
If you don't know, you don't know. It's fine.
They're finally making the prequels? Awesome!
Nope, but I heard a guy who was not much of a fan made a bunch of hack job "fan-fiction" films.
I do not believe that to be the case. But then again, this is in the field of personal interpretation....
It's more in the field of pattern recognition. Have you never been in a DD religious thread? He does the same thing, predictably, every time. As was outlined above. He insists that atheism requires the same level of faith that belief in god does, because of his own rhetorical definition, ignoring protests to the contrary and things like "agnostic atheism" which the vast majority of us are.
But regardless, telling someone to their face what they believe is pretty offensive in itself.
He does the same thing, predictably, every time. As was outlined above. He insists that atheism requires the same level of faith that belief in god does, because of his own rhetorical definition, ignoring protests to the contrary and things like "agnostic atheism" which the vast majority of us are.
That is unfair!
You forgot the part where he pontificates on our ignorance.
He does the same thing, predictably, every time. As was outlined above. He insists that atheism requires the same level of faith that belief in god does, because of his own rhetorical definition, ignoring protests to the contrary and things like "agnostic atheism" which the vast majority of us are.That is unfair!
You forgot the part where he pontificates on our ignorance.
Ooh ooh!
Or how, when challenged on something, he deftly changes the subject or just doesn't respond.
You guys are just jealous that he gives such good thread.
Then why doesn't it lead to that ending being a happy one?
Time for a new thread masseuse.
You guys are just jealous that he gives such good thread.
Seems a bit toothless to be to a goblin's taste.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
