Bully? That’s rich, since several of you cannot even read what is typed. And if you do, you cannot understand fundamental definitions.

My entire response is to this. I pointed out that I am not confusing the two. In fact I went to great lengths to point out that I do not even equate God to Morality. You keep insisting that I did. I did not say you were an atheist, I said you are using the tired atheist argument to prove your point.

Get over it, Cosmo, it’s not about you or your definitions or classifications.

Well Said Doma. Cosmo always trys to bully a conversation by making the definitions and therefore defining the ground rules for the proceeding debate.

riends like Joe, or your friends, may be devout atheists, but they also tend to be wusses in other areas. They do not really stand up for anything, religious, political, etc. They are cowardly in not being able to admit their limits’

Look at what you quoted from me. Did you really miss the word ‘tend’? Or are you willfully ignoring it. There is a fundamental difference between stating something definitive- like the weak and strong posit, and then stating something in a general vein.

Main Entry:
2tend
Function:
intransitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English, to stretch, direct oneself, from Anglo-French tendre — more at tender
Date:
14th century

1 : to move, direct, or develop one’s course in a particular direction 2 : to exhibit an inclination or tendency : conduce

So, when I state ‘BS! I defined atheists by one of two strands with which are out there- the weak and strong atheist, period.’ that’s exactly what I did. I defined the difference. The addendum was just that, not part of the definition.

So, like Somebody, who pulls things out of his hat, and Doma, who was strawmanning, you two are having a difficult time reading what people say.

I suspect 99.8% or more of online threads devolve down to people who simply refuse to actually read what others say.

Doma: ‘The above is simply irrelevenat.’

No, it’s not, when Somebody types ‘No you are bringing out the Atheists stock response to all Christians that only Christians can be moral. Therefore any attempt I make at defending my Christian values is met with the tired old argument that Christians believe they are the only ones who have morals. This is patently false logic.’

Thus, I replied, ‘“I defined atheists by one of two strands with which are out there- the weak and strong atheist, period. I made no other assumptions about them, only the two strands. You are strawmanning because you cannot argue the premise.”’

If Somebody says I said A, when I said B, then C, my refutation of A is very relevant. Your comment, however, is irrelevant, as well as wrong.

And, you are the one strawmanning, and misquoting, as well as not following simple discourse. So, you get over it, for it’s not about your inability to follow a conversation, esp. if you are not the one being addressed.

As for, ‘Your classifications are irrelevant to all those atheists who belong in neither of your groups or choose to describe themselve in ohter ways.’

An atheist can call themselves an aardvark, but if they ascribe to a denial of God, then they are a strong atheist, and if they merely believe a god cannot be, then they are a weak one, better known as an agnostic. Definitions do not transmogrify to fit your limitations.

Again, get over it.

The above is simply irrelevenat.

You define one way, by divintg atheists into two groups of your choosing and ,again, your definition
and someone else divides another way.

Get over it, Cosmo, it’s not about you or your definitions or classifications.
You can scream and holler and insult all you want.
Your classifications are irrelevant to all those atheists who belong in neither of your groups or choose to describe themselve in ohter ways.

It is not about you.

BS! I defined atheists by one of two strands with which are out there- the weak and strong atheist, period.

Not quite so “period”

riends like Joe, or your friends, may be devout atheists, but they also tend to be wusses in other areas. They do not really stand up for anything, religious, political, etc. They are cowardly in not being able to admit their limits

I’m going to assume you apply this to your definition (which clearly differs from mine) of a “strong atheist”. Do correct me if I’m wrong. It’s a very insulting and generalizing statement to make about a very VERY diverse group of people, hence mine and doma’s complaint.

‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’’

I know you did not make a point; you simply confused the definitions of things. That was my point.

‘No you are bringing out the Atheists stock response to all Christians that only Christians can be moral. Therefore any attempt I make at defending my Christian values is met with the tired old argument that Christians believe they are the only ones who have morals. This is patently false logic.’

I am a) not an atheist, and b) did not state anything you state in this paragraph above, nor in the rest of your reply.

These replies are in black and white- show me, in any response above, where I stated any of that. If you cannot, then do not conflate my reply with others. You are simply 100% wrong.

Doma: ‘The problem here is that everyone is defining atheists and agnostics as if they were homogenious groups. The truth is far from that.
Pleople like Cosmo, who assume that their own definitions are, or should be, universal just muddy the waters and start unnecessary fights.’

BS! I defined atheists by one of two strands with which are out there- the weak and strong atheist, period. I made no other assumptions about them, only the two strands. You are strawmanning because you cannot argue the premise.

It is the strawmanning, and the ascription of things to others, which are definitively not so, that cause arguments. If one reads only what another types, there wd be no argument.
As I stated earlier, keep on point!

DLS: ‘And ill-behaved, all too often.’

So, behave!

Oh my stars the burden I must bear to have a discussion with such mindless dolts.

And ill-behaved, all too often. [scowl]

Let me admit right at the start that I have no idea what a FUTURIST is.
Especially when you mention the supernatural and paranormal, I tend to draw back. I disturst anything that bypasses the ordinary and natural in order to jump to the extraordinary and supernatural.
Are you referring to forces outside all laws of nature or just outside the laws of nature that we know about?

You posted once about some aspects, and I found that post quite interesting.
Have you considered posting a very basic primer on Fururism, so we would know the basis for it?
I warn you that I don’t expect to be a convert, but I’m always delighted to find out what other people are thinking about. The world of ‘what if’ always fascinates.

The ways atheism is experienced by actual atheists are varied in the exteme. It can be seen as a positive life-guiding philosophy, or a negative rejection of religious beliefs. Free thinkiers, humnaists and even some esoteric religions all claim an atheist wing.

I think we’re an interesting bunch, repesenting as many types of personalities as there are on earth.
About the only thing that is common to all is the rejection of the major organized religions and the rejection of a god or other spirit as an acutal being, separate from humans and the natural world or having a finiite form of its own.

While I’m sure there is a contingent of the apathetic,
I find most to be seekers of understanding and the guiding principles of life. Rejecting a spitit as separate form the naural world, does not al all mean a rejection of spiritual experience. Contrary to what most textbooks say, even a transcendental experience is available to atheists, quite unrelated to the world of the supernatural.

Rather than telling atheists what they are, or trying to squuze them into someone’s classification system (as scholars do) , the best tool for atheists to gain acceptance would be a book/blog/ymposium comprised of the many ways atheism is experienced by atheists. It shouldn’t be a contest seeking the best definition, but a quiltwork of the many different expressions of atheism in real lives.

So while I respect those that follow a faith, I would never be respected in that way if I ran for office since I’m an agnostic and “silly future thinker with all the Star Trek stuff in the brain”. That’s the country we live in. Seems a little different from the original.

I never for one second assumed the poster was asking or demanding me to give up my beliefs. It never ceases to amaze me how you folks can turn around what I say simply because Im one of two or three Conservatives here, and Christian to boot.

If I can strive to a lie that is steeped in goodness and mercy then I would rather strive to those goals then strive to manlikeness which is steeped in self absorbed paranoia that strives to maximize the grandest of the “ME< ME

This simply means that all men have one common goal. Taking care of number one. Self preservation. There is nothing inflamatory here. Im ascribing this to agnostics, Atheists and even those who think they believe but just dont have time for God right now. Man is a selfish being.

Read my lips. I do not care if Jews are in power. If Atheists are in the White House. I do not care if my boss does not believe in God. I do not care if My Governor is a Muslim or Mormon.

What I do care about is this incessant screaming that “Christians only want x or y or z.” This is false. Christians want a man in office that ascribes to their values. Just as you want a man in office that ascribes to YOURS.

The question I ask is Why are we wrong to want people in office that share our values? Why is that so wrong?

The fact is…….its not. Only the loon left screaming it over and over has somehow attempted to portray Christianity as a Fascist state looking for a good country to destroy.

I stand up and challenge this lunacy.

‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’

No you are bringing out the Atheists stock response to all Christians that only Christians can be moral. Therefore any attempt I make at defending my Christian values is met with the tired old argument that Christians believe they are the only ones who have morals. This is patently false logic.

What I said is even if there is NO GOD that I would still embrace the morality that Christianity brings to the table because I support the values it suggests. I do not ascribe those values to God. Therefore in my post I am not even arguing the existence of God but rather the existence of a set of Moral values, some of which comes from the bible and some of which comes from man.

For example Christian values teach that it is wrong to murder. Atheists believe this too. Does that mean Atheists have morals? Yes. Their morals come from no godly source while the values I learned were before I ever embraced God. Before I was a Christian I believed also that it was wrong to murder. My morals also came from no Godly source. Therefore the logical conclusion is that morality is a man made attempt at reaching out to be Godlike for Christians and for atheists it is the need and desire to be morally acceptable to society. It is not God reaching out to man.

When I say I ascribe to the Values that a Christian religion espouses I am not defending God, or confusing those morals with God but rather I am ascribing to man, all men, Universal values that strives to bring some closer to god and others closer to being a moral entity.

Therefore Morality and God are not even in this equation. Morality more defines an Atheist then it does a Christian. Because while an Atheist strives to be Moral a Christian strives to be Godlike. The differences are striking yet similar. They arrive at the same moral equivalency while taking diverging paths.

But your words are in black and white- but Taxi Driver’s in color, like Taxi- a sitcom, which has no bearing on the film.

JSpencer: Yes, Occam’s Razor- i.e.- the simplest answer that best fits the known facts is usually the correct one, is a good principle to hew to; which is why when even strong atheists misuse it, it frustrates. They are their own worst enemies, not the religiots.

Everyone here from what I could see were politely trying to say its okay to be an atheist but enter Cosmo.

Your wrong…….Your wrong……you can’t speel……your wrong.

I’m right. Oh my stars the burden I must bear to have a discussion with such mindless dolts.

Forgive me while I frantically search for a rerun of Taxi so I can gather the wisdom that you possess Cosmo.

As has been mentioned often, a traditional belief in god or association with a church is hardly necessary in order to be a good person with a healthy spiritual life. Funny thing, I’ve never met any of the capitol A sort in my 55 years, and while I don’t doubt they exist, I suspect they are in many cases props for debate as often as they are real people.

The word BRAVE says it all. That it should require bravery to openly avow not believing in the supernatural describes the sad state of the ‘all men are created equal’ notion in this coutnry.
Say what you will, but this is about political power.
Those who are enjoying it, (the religious) don’t want to cede an inch to those who don’t (atheists).
It might take the ateists a civil rights movement of their own to achieve eaual status.

I like to hear others’ points of views about these matters because I like to learn. Cosmo is accurate in his beginning of a psychological profile for those who think something ‘decidedly.’ There are many sub-genres to such a profile.

But, I also wince over my lifetime whenever I’ve been told I or anyone else is going to vajra hell or otherwise sewn into a bag for drowning because I or they don’t measure up to another persons’ sure idea of smart enough, aware enough, rational enough, or other.

What interests me isn’t what people believe/know/sense, think exactly, but how they’ve constructed that, and whether they consider they have ‘arrived,’ or is this endeavor…this sense of knowing where one stands in relation to all else in the universe, an ongoing journey?

For me, it’s the latter most days. And there is as much bewilderment, and puzzling to thence be done, as there are, not absolutes, but rather, experiences that I understand as different than, and beyond ego alone.

I hope I have not gone too far off course from our Guest’s essay, which I think is a brave one, and gives information not only about some of the frustrations encountered as an Atheist, but also a trace of path for making a bridge of understanding.

dr.e

Lynx: You are using the ‘I have many friends who are black’ tack in the argument, and it shows. It’s funny, as I type I’m watching Taxi Driver on tv, and it’s a film that deals with the issues of folk who say one thing yet do another.

Enter Somebody (Travis Bickle: I wanna become Somebody.):

I did grasp what you said, but you ignored what I typed: ‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’

I did not say a word on the principles (the correct spelling) you hold, merely your conflation of a belief in something and an ethical principle.

Thus, as usual, you are arguing w yourself, not anything I stated.

Lynx: ‘Atheists come in all shapes, sizes and opinions, if you’re too biased against them to realize that, it’s your problem, not theirs.’

So do plumbers, but there are only a limited number of tools they use, just as an atheist is either weak or strong. It’s of no use to the argument whether or not they are tax cheats, since that’s not the issue, only the strands of their atheism. The rest of your claim is utterly superfluous. As the politicos say, ‘Keep on point.’

Enter Somebody (Travis Bickle: I wanna become Somebody.):

Lynx: ‘Atheists come in all shapes, sizes and opinions, if you’re too biased against them to realize that, it’s your problem, not theirs.’

So do plumbers, but there are only a limited number of tools they use, just as an atheist is either weak or strong. It’s of no use to the argument whether or not they are tax cheats, since that’s not the issue, only the strands of their atheism. The rest of your claim is utterly superfluous. As the politicos say, ‘Keep on point.’
I did grasp what you said, but you ignored what I typed: ‘You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.’

I did not say a word on the principles (the correct spelling) you hold, merely your conflation of a belief in something and an ethical principle.

Thus, as usual, you are arguing w yourself, not anything I stated.

You are confusing a belief in a thing with an ethical principle. They are 2 diff beasts.

No as usual you fail to even grasp the simplicity of what I wrote.

You have failed to even take this quote in the context in which it was written.

and if I die and there turns out to be NO god then what have I lost? Where has it hurt me? This life that I choose to live is my free expression as a human being.

Because you do not agree with the principals upon which I stand

My vaules are determined by my Faith in God and his writings, teaching and moral instructions. If it turns out their is no God I would still choose to ascribe to these values, morals and teachings because I believe in their intrinsic value.

I believe. And If Im wrong I want the nothingness of eternity to tell me Im wrong. Not Cosmo or Matt Pearl.