Freedom of Religion in America?

[C.F. Kane]

Are we still talking about Stein's commentary here or have we gone so far astray that this has turned into another Religion (God) vs. Atheist thread? If so, how many threads on God vs. Atheist do we need?

So, you're fed up with people who "like to talk about this stuff" too? You just might be a fascist.

 

[GarudA]

So, I'm agnostic. I don't believe in a "creator". I do believe all life was sprung from the same source of energy in the universe and that is what ties us all together. It doesn't have a face. It doesn't have a name or even a consciousness or sentience. It doesn't even have a central presence. It just "is". Not all agnostics have a "just in case"/safety clause kind of thing going on in their beliefs so please keep that in mind.

And to keep this on topic, Ben Stein is a self-important *****e.

jag

I too also have the same view as you, but I call my self a "Atheist-Agnostic" because I do not hold a belief in a god but do know for sure if one exists because of lack of evidence.

 

[DBella]

So, you're fed up with people who "like to talk about this stuff" too? You just might be a fascist.

No.
Yes.

 

[kainedamo]

I'm gonna pm the people saying stupid stuff about agnostics.

 

[Bill]

Yes but then the other side of that statement is that atheism is actually more offensive than some atheists. As you can see I try not to make generalizations about any group of people so maybe just maybe I'm not as ignorance as you think I am and maybe you are more ignorance than you realize, which IMO is confirmed by your statement.

Yes, but then the other side of your statement doesn't make much sense. If you are truly offended by the idea of lacking belief due to a lack of proof, then I guess we are at an impasse. Although I don't think that's it. I think your offended by what you think atheism means, which is a far cry from what it does mean.


You see, Wilhelm believes that Atheism only means that people actively believe that gods or god cannot exist. This is "strong" or gnostic atheism. It is only one side of two different sides of the coin. There is also the "weak" atheist or agnostic atheist. This is a viewpoint of skepticism, disbelief in a god or gods.

Both sides quantify atheism, but neither side defines it. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. Either side of the coin can be agnostic or gnostic, much like theism.

Since you stated that you agree with Wilhelm, I assume that you agree with his definition. His definition of atheism is wrong. If the viewpoints of some atheists offends him, or you, then by all means, take them to task. But to be offended by atheism itself, based on such a straw man, is, well, ignorant.

I think this erroneous viewpoint of atheism has caused a great deal of the backlash and I think it's important to have it properly defined if we're going to throw these terms around in any discussion.

As for Ben Stein's letter, Jman summed up how I feel about it perfectly.

 

[Bill]

I too also have the same view as you, but I call my self a "Atheist-Agnostic" because I do not hold a belief in a god but do know for sure if one exists because of lack of evidence.

It really is just that simple.

 

[Superhobo]

Yes but then the other side of that statement is that atheism is actually more offensive than some atheists. As you can see I try not to make generalizations about any group of people so maybe just maybe I'm not as ignorance as you think I am and maybe you are more ignorance than you realize, which IMO is confirmed by your statement.

O RLY?

 

[raybia]

Of course you do. But since atheism is actually less offensive than some atheists, I don't think I can solve your ignorance.

Yes, but then the other side of your statement doesn't make much sense. If you are truly offended by the idea of lacking belief due to a lack of proof, then I guess we are at an impasse. Although I don't think that's it. I think your offended by what you think atheism means, which is a far cry from what it does mean.


You see, Wilhelm believes that Atheism only means that people actively believe that gods or god cannot exist. This is "strong" or gnostic atheism. It is only one side of two different sides of the coin. There is also the "weak" atheist or agnostic atheist. This is a viewpoint of skepticism, disbelief in a god or gods.

Both sides quantify atheism, but neither side defines it. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. Either side of the coin can be agnostic or gnostic, much like theism.

Since you stated that you agree with Wilhelm, I assume that you agree with his definition. His definition of atheism is wrong. If the viewpoints of some atheists offends him, or you, then by all means, take them to task. But to be offended by atheism itself, based on such a straw man, is, well, ignorant.

I think this erroneous viewpoint of atheism has caused a great deal of the backlash and I think it's important to have it properly defined if we're going to throw these terms around in any discussion.

As for Ben Stein's letter, Jman summed up how I feel about it perfectly.

Actually I never said that I was offended by Atheism.

You brought that into the discussion when you said that "atheism is actually less offensive than atheists."

I don't take the concept of Atheism personally so it doesn't bother me at all.

I do agree with you that the definition of Atheism should be examined more closely because I do think there is some lack of understanding that many people have of it.

What I originally said was that I agree with Wil in that I have little respect for Atheism as a belief system however I have respect for atheists in general and some for more specific reasons. I would never ridicule a person merely because they don't believe in G-d or a Creator. To do so is to reveal your own insecurities in the beliefs that we can to have.

 

[raybia]

O RLY?

Yeah, I woke up this morning and spelled ignorance instead of ignorant. Thats hilarious as it either proves that I am truly ignorant or that I don't really care about the importance of spelling on a message board since I'm not getting a grade for it.

 

[Superhobo]

Yeah, I woke up this morning and spelled ignorance instead of ignorant. Thats hilarious as it either proves that I am truly ignorant or that I don't really care about the importance of spelling on a message board since I'm not getting a grade for it.

I agree.

 

[Bill]

Actually I never said that I was offended by Atheism.

You brought that into the discussion when you said that "atheism is actually less offensive than atheists."

I don't take the concept of Atheism personally so it doesn't bother me at all.

I do agree with you that the definition of Atheism should be examined more closely because I do think there is some lack of understanding that many people have of it.

What I originally said was that I agree with Wil in that I have little respect for Atheism as a belief system however I have respect for atheists in general and some for more specific reasons. I would never ridicule a person merely because they don't believe in G-d or a Creator. To do so is to reveal your own insecurities in the beliefs that we can to have.

Since Atheism isn't a "belief system," we can dispense with that one too.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You see, Wilhelm believes that Atheism only means that people actively believe that gods or god cannot exist. This is "strong" or gnostic atheism. It is only one side of two different sides of the coin. There is also the "weak" atheist or agnostic atheist. This is a viewpoint of skepticism, disbelief in a god or gods.

Since you stated that you agree with Wilhelm, I assume that you agree with his definition. His definition of atheism is wrong. If the viewpoints of some atheists offends him, or you, then by all means, take them to task. But to be offended by atheism itself, based on such a straw man, is, well, ignorant.

Hahahahaha, this thread has been MIND-blowing.

• First someone calls me a militant atheist when I strongly believe there's a God

• ...and now someone else states, as if "fact", that I believe all atheism is "Strong Atheism" when anyone with a brain realizes that there is a huge difference between believing, that something doesn't exist, and, not necessarily believing something exists.

You can be an atheist who believes the proposition that gods do not exist. (a "strong atheist")

OR, you can be a non-theist. You might strongly believe that a particular "god" doesn't exist, while simply lacking any evidence to make you believe in some other conception of God, without extending that to say "No other Gods can exist."

There are negative, or "weak" atheists.
There are Theological Noncognitivists who dismiss all ideas of God.

"positive" and "negative" atheism was what they called it in the 70's.
In the 90's, "strong" and "weak" came into vogue.

Atheism is not the same thing as a denial of the existence of a God.





How, about...everybody stops foolishly talking about what I believe, especially when they have no idea what they're talking about...and you talk about something we ALL can know....The Topic of the Thread ?

Or, you'd have a better chance of saying something true, if you stuck to telling US, what YOU believe, instead of erroneously telling us what I supposedly believe.

That'd be great. Thanks.


p.s. - "not having much respect" for a belief, is not the same thing as finding that belief to be "offensive".



Hahahahaha, just a mega-colossal SUPERNOVA of wrong.

 

[Lighthouse]

Eh, I thought his TV show was good.

 

[Joker]

I dont think people are giving nearly enough consideration to my "meat grinder" plan...I've ammended it to make everyone happy though. Now it wont just be religous people, but ALL people. Also, monkies, just in case they some day were to evolve into people-like creatures. And then, before the last person throws himself into the grinder, he pushes...THE BUTTON. The button will release every nations stockpile of nuclear weapons all over the earth, including the ice caps and the oceans. A nuclear holocaust that not even the cockroaches can survive. And then, we shall have world peace, where no one fights about who's invisible man has a bigger penis, or whether there in fact are invisible penises ever again.

 

[Bill]

Hahahahaha, this thread has been MIND-blowing.

• First someone calls me a militant atheist when I strongly believe there's a God

• ...and now someone else states, as if "fact", that I believe all atheism is "Strong Atheism" when anyone with a brain realizes that there is a huge difference between believing, that something doesn't exist, and, not necessarily believing something exists.

You can be an atheist who believes the proposition that gods do not exist. (a "strong atheist")

OR, you can be a non-theist. You might strongly believe that a particular "god" doesn't exist, while simply lacking any evidence to make you believe in some other conception of God, without extending that to say "No other Gods can exist."

There are negative, or "weak" atheists.
There are Theological Noncognitivists who dismiss all ideas of God.

"positive" and "negative" atheism was what they called it in the 70's.
In the 90's, "strong" and "weak" came into vogue.

Atheism is not the same thing as a denial of the existence of a God.





How, about...everybody stops foolishly talking about what I believe, especially when they have no idea what they're talking about...and you talk about something we ALL can know....The Topic of the Thread ?

Or, you'd have a better chance of saying something true, if you stuck to telling US, what YOU believe, instead of erroneously telling us what I supposedly believe.

That'd be great. Thanks.


p.s. - "not having much respect" for a belief, is not the same thing as finding that belief to be "offensive".



Hahahahaha, just a mega-colossal SUPERNOVA of wrong.

You certainly don't differentiate that in your posts. You say you have no respect for atheism, which doesn't say the same thing as "the many atheists you've argued with who say there is no god." And when someone explains the difference, we're met with resistance and idiotic banter. I can certainly quote posts lead me to my conclusion, but, to be fair, at times you make ambiguousness of meaning a fine art.

You have made posts that equate all atheists as strong atheists, and had to finally make an admission of "some are strong atheists." Atheism itself is neither strong nor weak, it's simply a lack of belief. And it's when people over-conceptualize it that it becomes "unreasonable" or "offensive." You describe agnosticism as though it were some ultra-reasonable middling choice, when it actually describes atheism or theism. Maybe these guys can explain it to you.

At the very least you have problems differentiating what some atheists think or say from what Atheism means. I'd like to think that if you can take a moment to seriously consider why I might reach the conclusion I have (and I can quote you to help you along), you might find that I'm not only NOT mega-colossally wrong about what you purport to think, but your disdain of atheism is baseless as well.


But I've been wrong before...

 

[Superman4ever]

Blah blah blah...Also, monkies, just in case they some day were to evolve into people-like creatures. And then...wonka wonka wonka.

Humanzee
[YT]C6NkRUbI38[/YT]

Soon!

 

[raybia]

Since Atheism isn't a "belief system," we can dispense with that one too.

Yes or no question:

Do you believe in atheism? YES OR NO RESPONSE ONLY.

 

[Danalys]

the question is nonsensical or ill defined.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

You certainly don't differentiate that in your posts. You say you have no respect for atheism,

I went out of my way to say "I have little respect for atheism.
That says, I have respect for atheism...only, a small amount.
Why do you insist on saying that I'M saying things when you don't even bother to get it right?
Stick to giving your opinions instead of trying to make grand declarations about mine when you can't even be bothered to read what I'm saying, please.
That will work out fine, if, you just tell us how you feel, instead of worrying about how I feel. Great.

which doesn't say the same thing as "the many atheists you've argued with who say there is no god." And when someone explains the difference, we're met with resistance and idiotic banter.

1) Dude, first of all, why do you have such a hard-on for me? This is insane.
Hey everybody?! Did you know that Aristotle's favorite TV program is "The Bionic Woman" and Bill doesn't like Black people?! Insanity.

2) I have no respect for someone who says they "know" something that can't be known. Those are the people who say there is no God as if it's a fact.
NEXT, I have LITTLE respect for someone who looks at the universe and their own life and doesn't say, "Whoa, I'll bet there's a God. I don't know for sure...I may be wrong, there might not be one, but I think there probably is."
I don't think they're thoughtful or honest enough.

You're trying to color this as if I'm in error, and I'm not. I have an opinion that you don't like. It's not based on any error.

I can certainly quote posts lead me to my conclusion, but, to be fair, at times you make ambiguousness of meaning a fine art.

I should hope so. You can't cover every minute facet of every phenomenon in little posts on these boards.

You have made posts that equate all atheists as strong atheists, and had to finally make an admission of "some are strong atheists."

You are wrong. I did not "admit" that some are strong. This is common knowledge.

Since you are so interested in what I think, or in what I say...letr me explain it to you once again.

This happens a lot on message boards.

If I say, "Christians think homosexuality is a sin.", is that true?
Yes, absolutely. There are SOME Christians out there who think that.
Do they all believe that?
Absolutely not.
When I say "Christians think homosexuality is a sin.", it's like saying, "Dolphins get caught in tuna nets."
Is THAT true?
Yes, SOME dolphins get caught in tuna nets.
Does that mean that every dolphin on Earth gets caught?
Of COURSE not.


So, someone who is riled up and rarin' to "fight", sees me say "Christians hate homosex.", and dreadfully boringly has to pipe up and say, "Not all of them! Not ALL of them! You're an anti-Christian bigot!"

This is what happened when I spoke of atheists, and I didn't admit that some are strong, you're, again, wrong when you say that. I admitted that for clarity sake, I should've bothered to add in the "SOME".

Which is ridiculous. Should I have to now say, "SOME dolphins get caught in tuna nets! " ?
Well, no, because there aren't any hot-headed, attack-now-ask-questions-later, impassioned weirdos attacking my statements on dolphins for no good reason, right now.

You describe agnosticism as though it were some ultra-reasonable middling choice

It is the only belief that we know, for a fact, is true.
If there was, if there WAS, a God, who was in another dimension, not tangible, not visible, AND, he wanted no contact with humans...we'd be right where we are now...you wouldn't know that he exists, and you couldn't.
So something like that COULD exist, even if it's really far-fetched.

There was a time when you couldn't use a microscope to see germs and you couldn't measure X-Rays.
If I went back and told them about germs and X-Rays, I would sound ******ed...and yet, I'd be the only human on Earth who was actually right about it.

The only thing we know for sure is that we can't know about some of these things.

Then, you may believe one way or the other sounds more reasonable, likely, to you.
I think everyone has to admit that as humans, we are automatically agnostic...and then, we decide, as an added layer, for fun, because it can't be proven, if we're atheistic or theistic.

But some don't admit that they are agnostic, or even think they are.
They are, whether they agree or not.

At the very least you have problems differentiating what some atheists think or say from what Atheism means.

I have none whatsoever. You are wrong.

I'd like to think that if you can take a moment to seriously consider why I might reach the conclusion I have (and I can quote you to help you along),

Do it.
Let's see the quotes.
You couldn't even manage to correctly quote me a few pages ago when I said "I have LITTLE respect", so I actually would prefer, very much, that you actually quote me, instead of informing me of what I think.

But I've been wrong before...

Truly.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Am I ever going to get to see these quotes?

(and I can quote you to help you along),

 

[SiTy]

Yes or no question:

Do you believe in atheism? YES OR NO RESPONSE ONLY.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Superhobo]

NEXT, I have LITTLE respect for someone who looks at the universe and their own life and doesn't say, "Whoa, I'll bet there's a God. I don't know for sure...I may be wrong, there might not be one, but I think there probably is."
I don't think they're thoughtful or honest enough.

Why?

 

[Danalys]

from previous posts it's a god of the gaps or fine tuning of the universes under pinning processes arguement. and then he's also referenced personal events that he hasn't elaborated on.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I've already explained why in 1,746,908 words typed on the Hype.
I'm not going to do it again today, and especially not in the Ben Stein thread.
This isn't even about if religion is true.
It's a societal thing...anti-religious climate leading to erosion of morals.
It could be argued that Ben Stein is right, even by a non-believer...like, yeah, God doesn't exist, religion is hooey, BUT, the belief in it does maintain a stable, safe, "virtuous" society...blablabla. (except for with regards to the natural disaster angle, of course)

It's just, I really do not like it when people tell lies about me, or say that I said something I did not say, so I had to correct that when I saw it.
Anyone can easily, at any time, go to the "Do You Believe In A God?" thread and see, not ALL, but some, of my thoughts on why.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]