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? Should be "no belief in a god" not "a belief in no god".
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." 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. 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
You have given a good refutation of Aldridge's revisionist history. 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?
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.
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. So I responded that this week's survey proves they know more religious facts than anyone else, and you said that's irrelevant.
