I just left a group I joined a few weeks ago as I  have contributed not a sausage. I dont actually know why I joined as I am not against liberals or some liberal policy's

My leaning are socialist in nature barr a few right wing views which you could count on one hand.

My main  gripes are with religon, passive atheists, agnostic  sit on the fence lovlies and Glasgow celtic fans.

thats that then

i was listening the radiohead song creep

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkzRNyygfk

Views: 46

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

everytime i click on the reply to link i get taken back to the start of the discussion.

i will reply asap
wow, or did you just copy me man. hurry up man and spill the beans or its mulder and scully i will be emailing.

take care
i dont suppose my little dig at the phrase there is probably no god will bring its own comments, so let me say this

i would put myself in the level 7 atheist catagory, i believe that a lot more people would put themselves on this stand point, however there is one problem for my fellow atheists and thats that they do not want to be tarred with the same brush as the fundies.

Now I can see their point about there not being evidence to support this, however lets take a closer look at why I can say there is no biblical god, It is biblical god were talking about here, not some massively superior super being from the next galaxy or universe.

How much evidence do we need to say without doubt there is not a biblical god, not just probably. Beofre i blab on I have to say there is a major difference on the fundie position and those of us that say there is no god. the fundies are saying this based on story telling , dogma, their big book of bollocks. We the enlightened are saying this from a base of fact supported by evidence.

the bible tells us, he made heaven and earth in 6 days and on the 7th he masterbated ( SORRY COULD NOT HELP THAT). Now inmagine if science had not told us about cosmology and the evolutuion of the universe, we would have no evidence against such utter tosh. Lets take adam and eve, again without the science behind the evolution of the earth we would be hard pressed to categorically state that this is not the case. Now the holy tell us these are just parables and such but this is just cheery picking, the more we dent there case the more they cheery pick.

what i am getting at is , we take this stanced based on evidence and facts, we are just to fucking scared to actually come out and say. there is no god, fuck that probably crap. I mean how much evidencce does it takefor some to take the probably out of the phrase.

we need someone to stand up, people like dave G , norgan, doon, gator, nelson, johhny, dan, misty , reggie, frink, chelsea, monicks, matt, dawkins and all the others to come out.

iam sure i have loads more to say on this subject, i was thinking of starting a new discussion but alas .


keep it loud and proud
(Really wanted to jump on the agnostic definitions). =)

@ Neal - You will have to teach me restraint when it comes to that subject. I can't seem to help myself from jumping in.
tell me more regg
I just can;t help diving into that whole "agnostic versus atheist" discussion. I really find "agnostic" to be useless in most circumstances.
i do not see it having any value, nonw what so ever, however I am open to new ideas



sleep well friend
Well, I certainly have no belief, so that throws me due west.
Gnostic/agnostic is not certainty, as i see it, but rather knowledge. If you claim to know something, you are gnostic, and should be able to provide evidence supporting that claim of knowledge.
Then absolutely knowing something is not certainty? I considered them pretty much the same. There seems to be a disconnect between that use of gnostic and the common use of many the word agnostic. Otherwise, agnostic and ignorant would be synonyms.

Good old Merriam says thia about agnostic:

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something


And I think there are many agnostics that fit both definitions. But the more I read the first definition, the more problems I have with it, as I do with many definitions of the word "atheism".

By this definition, I would not consider myself an agnostic at all. I agree with the first half of the first definition, although I see that being just as irrelevant as never being able to disprove the existence of fairies or proving any number of negatives. Which loops back to my disagreement over labeling my unbelief in all sorts of crazy things with the elegant but fun word "agnostic".

Of course, gnostic refers to adherents of gnosticism, according to Merriam, which says this on gnosticism:

: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

And gnosis is:

: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation.

So it looks to me like, according to Merriam, that gnostic and agnostic are not even antonyms of each other, really.
tell me about this doone,
cheers for the kind words, i was expecting a busy time

RSS

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service