Bazdavies79 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 It's not about not thinking the same as me, it's about doing everything they can to try to avoid using a word that simply means "not a theist". It says a lot about their characters I think and have demonstrated that agnosticism can be a position of neutrality. Fair enough if you disagree, like I said I'm not going to dance on the end of that needle with you. But if you want to go around calling people cowards or whatever you need to have a word with yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 You haven't demonstrated anything other than a complete lack of understanding. There is no neutrality when it comes to theism. You either are a theist, or you're not. It's that simple. Don't worry, I have plenty of words with myself, and I make a point to make sure I know what they all mean before using them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Well look up humility and tolerance then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 It wasn't clear at all that they were personal views, so don't try and twist out of that one lol. So you think people who call themselves agnostic are wrong to do so because you don't accept the term as it is widely used. Fair enough that's fine with me. But you think they are weak and cowardly because they don't think the same as you - that says a lot about your character. he's right thought. agnostics are actually atheists, because if they were theists they wouldnt be agnostic, ergo not being a theist is being an atheist it's very much a binary system, one that's based on belief, not knowing. person a who claims to know that there is no god is an atheist, person b who isn't sure if there's a god but doesn't believe in one is also an atheist, person c who doesnt know for sure if there is a god but is a believer of a religion is a theist and person d who is dead sure there's a god is also a theist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 9, 2012 Well look up humility and tolerance then. Have you looked up admitting you were wrong? That itself would require a good deal of humility and probably some tolerance too, so maybe those definitions might be of use to yourself Baz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 What am I wrong about, calling people derogatory names? Is that acceptable? Or are we still in denial that agnosticism can be used as a term to describe people who take neither of the opposing viewpoints on the existence of god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P3te Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 What am I wrong about, calling people derogatory names? Is that acceptable? Or are we still in denial that agnosticism can be used as a term to describe people who take neither of the opposing viewpoints on the existence of god? agnosticism is a term that can be applied to a lot of atheists you can't be agnostic without being an atheist (despite what some would like to think), but in some cases you can be atheist without being agnostic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Well, look back over my posts and you can see what I believe and put whatever label you like on it. I'm not concerned with these labels, because they're to wishy-washy. This is an argument I've allowed myself to be railroaded into. The main point, and what I can't understand, is why anybody would think someone with a differing view to them was cowardly, weak - a 'pussy'. That's not healthy to think like that, and that attitude goes through this whole 70 odd pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I think this debate you lot are having is going round and round in circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted September 9, 2012 Theres not a debate to be had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Theres not a debate to be had. OK I will phrase it a different way. The dialogue between them seems to be going around in cricles, a lot of repetition, neither appears to be backing down and I almost think they should just agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 9, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted September 9, 2012 Agreeing to disagree would be a good idea for the thread as a whole but it would require one side of the debate to concede a point they're not wrong on. Anywho, anyone see the story this week about Christians deciding to take their case to European Court of Human Rights over alleged discrimination? Interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 9, 2012 Yes and to be perfectly fair they have a great point and in my opinion will win their case, it's illogical to think otherwise. It should never have got anywhere near a european courtroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 you can't be agnostic without being an atheist (despite what some would like to think), but in some cases you can be atheist without being agnostic Actually you can. It's perfectly possible to be an agnostic theist. This is the whole point of the past few pages that baz seems completely blind to, agnostic covers knowledge, theism covers belief. You can believe without knowing, in fact it's a concept right at the heart of religion. With knowledge religion no longer becomes about faith, to have faith you cannot have knowledge, ergo anyone with faith, is by definition agnostic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Theres not a debate to be had. OK I will phrase it a different way. The dialogue between them seems to be going around in cricles, a lot of repetition, neither appears to be backing down and I almost think they should just agree to disagree. I'd back down, but it'd require rewriting a few books, and I don't think the Oxford University Press are accepting addendums to the dictionary at this moment in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Theres not a debate to be had. OK I will phrase it a different way. The dialogue between them seems to be going around in cricles, a lot of repetition, neither appears to be backing down and I almost think they should just agree to disagree.Quite right, but moving the debate on... The main point, and what I can't understand, is why anybody would think someone with a differing view to them was cowardly, weak or to repeat the exact term, a 'pussy'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 9, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 9, 2012 Theres not a debate to be had. OK I will phrase it a different way. The dialogue between them seems to be going around in cricles, a lot of repetition, neither appears to be backing down and I almost think they should just agree to disagree.Quite right, but moving the debate on... The main point, and what I can't understand, is why anybody would think someone with a differing view to them was cowardly, weak or to repeat the exact term, a 'pussy'? Not wishing to speak for The Don but its probably because they are hiding behind a word which they are using incorrectly so they don't have to come out and say the actual truth, that they are atheists because for some people there still seems to be a lot of shame associated with the word. Hiding behind something because the consequences of the truth seem unpalatable is probably where the cowardice and "being a pussy" come into it. It's rather like being a closeted homosexual Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted September 9, 2012 Author VT Supporter Share Posted September 9, 2012 Oh I dunno, I think some people just aren't very interested, and can't see much point in thinking about it. Which is at least more sensible than being a religious zealot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 Theres not a debate to be had. OK I will phrase it a different way. The dialogue between them seems to be going around in cricles, a lot of repetition, neither appears to be backing down and I almost think they should just agree to disagree. Quite right, but moving the debate on... The main point, and what I can't understand, is why anybody would think someone with a differing view to them was cowardly, weak or to repeat the exact term, a 'pussy'? Not wishing to speak for The Don but its probably because they are hiding behind a word which they are using incorrectly so they don't have to come out and say the actual truth, that they are atheists because for some people there still seems to be a lot of shame associated with the word. Hiding behind something because the consequences of the truth seem unpalatable is probably where the cowardice and "being a pussy" come into it. It's rather like being a closeted homosexual Pretty much. I don't see why people feel the need to misuse words when there's already words that perfectly describe them. It's simply hiding behind incorrect terminology for fear of stigma. It also annoys me because the reason there is still so much shame associated with the atheist word (especially in America) is because there are far too many people unwilling to stand up and say "I am an atheist", instead the only ones that do are the vocal ones, who in all fairness, are often seen as arrogant and abrasive. The likes of Dawkins... and me The only way the perception of atheists will change is if non-theists stand up and say they're atheists, instead people go "oh, no, I'm agnostic" to try to avoid debate and for hope of an easier life. But then I'm also against the practice of people putting Christian down on their census forms despite them never going to church and not actively believing in God, just as a de facto answer because they were christened once and haven't gave it any further thought. It just gives a distorted picture of the influence of religion and leads to it having a far greater say in society than it should do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Well, this suggestion that people, (or all people if I infer the posters comment accurately) are agnostic because they're atheists in denial is purely based on anecdotal evidence, as far as I can tell. No real evidence has been put forward to support it. Yet within this apparent vacuum of evidence a rather forthright view has arisen, agnostics are weak cowards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts