Athesim radicals and Theist Radicals

Chevy; if you haven't noticed; Denny and I disagree 100% with each other about God or lack thereof. You seem to constitute that anyone in disagreement is some theist that is using this thread to give atheism a bad name.

This thread is giving blind following a bad name. It's giving the people that abuse a generalized way of thinking to justify mass murder, persecution or exile.

Find the other thread or get back on topic.

 

Nope, wrong again. Agnosticism is ultimately an epistemological claim: can't claim knowledge unless certainty is achieved. It's a false conception (criteria) of knowledge applied to the yes or no of god's existence. Atheism is about belief in belief. It says genuine belief is compelled, god is not compelling, ergo, no belief. It's not a choice. The true atheist can't help but not be compelled. That is the fact he is faced with -- the inability to form such a belief, because belief is not a free choice, is not a guess made against a 50/50 proposition, but rather is a response to what reality presents.

 

Nope. That's not how I view it at all. I understand that you two differ with regard to your god beliefs and that you are both somewhat confused about atheism.

I'm only here to help. I've pointed this out and clarified where I thought was necessary. Nothing more. I try to specify what I am responding to by my quotes.

Feel free to quote anything I write seeking clarification or relevance.

 

Seems like you are the one that needs clarifying. Almost like you preaching "godless" things in a thread talking about exploitation of ideology.

 

Well you have a product. Good look finding a buyer.

 

It needn't seem like anything. I am sufficiently articulate to say what I mean. When you have a question, place the citation of my text where I can read it. That way it's easy to indicate where and (possibly) how your interpretation of my post has gone off track. Passing off your interpretations of what I've written is without any point that I can see. I mean, why pretend to argue with someone else when I am right here?

 

I've responded to you plenty. You have a funny way of thinking you gained some ground in a debate. Do you shadow box too?

 

And like I indicated in response the first time ... you're merely assuming my notion of atheism is a relabeling. It isn't, while your example, clearly is. Come on. You can do much much better.

 

Nope. This is just more of your unsupported vague attempts at casting a wide net so as to appear as if you're doing something. Note how there is nothing to indicate what you have in mind -- just vague references: a bald assertion that you've "responded plenty" but nothing indicative of said responses, no example of my funny way of "thinking" I've gained ground, and finally, just an allusion to shadow boxing.

Is this what you call ... debate?

 

Not really. I would need a quality opponent. This is more like "keep away", I being 6'4" and you being 4'5"

And bs? Lmao! Come on man. Stop living in denial about the communist movement!

 

Yes you were. You were characterizing my position as a relabeling of atheism -- like "neo nazis can label themselves social democrats," both relabelings YOU created. That's all I meant. Surely you could figure that out.

You also added that the labeling doesn't make it so. I would agree but would add that 1) you've not established a relabeling, 2) if you did, it doesn't mean the labeling is necessarily invalid, 3) As I said when you coughed this up previously, language changes as understandings change so relabeling itself doesn't establish anything except that there may be a change or development in our understanding of what experiences the term attempts to comprise.

LOL, way to whip the language into shape. Denny, I would simply say (and be able to argue) that the fondled child hates religion because he was fondled by a representative of religion. I would take this to be much more meaningful (plausible, likely) explanation than the formulation that the person hates religion because he's an atheist.

 

Ah so we finally get to your real agenda. I felt certain there was something you were going on about.

 

And what agenda is that?

 

It isn't clear that no one cares why he doesn't believe. And also, if no one cares then why argue for such a lame account (hates religion because he's become an atheist instead of hates religion due to the emotionally disturbing event?).

Yes. I know. I'm the one who didn't answer it. I was trying to determine the relevance of the question and couldn't, so I didn't. I mean, I've stated twenty times what I understand the meaning of atheism. Given that, I could not make sense of your query.

The question of gods existence isn't compelling enough to even form a belief about. It makes no sense to me conceptually and there is not sufficient development as a concept for all those who claim to believe to even believe in something shared. As an atheist, I am simply acknowledging that there is simply nothing I meet as a knower, in this world, that would cause me to form a belief in any thing (or things) like gods. Without the ability to form a belief in such things, the question of existence is severely misplaced. There is no way to get from "atheism" to "god doesn't exist." Atheism is about the adequate grounds for "belief formation," not "someone's opinion on the existence of supernatural beings."

I don't know anything for certain. Certainty is not an epistemological reality for me. There's merely the illusion -- the feeling of feeling positive about this or that, married to the theoretical/propositional side. As an honest person, I've seen too many cases where that feeling of certainty was too soon replaced with the certain truth of one's ignorance. The feeling of certainty is no promise of infallibility. In fact, for me, it's often a flag to back off epistemologically and reconsider the actual terms in play.

 

That has to be the biggest run around answer I ever seen.