Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
Participant[quote=Rustico]
Whoever falls between 1 and 7 is schismatic and 1 and 7 aren’t that great either. Just stop caring about the topic. It is not a mandatory issue to tackle, we just BELIEVE it is. Does any other animal waste its time thinking about God?[/quote]
I don’t understand what you mean by “schismatic.”
My earlier jackassness aside (I knew I’d regret that post – I do and I apologize), would you mind explaining what you mean by “schismatic?”
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.
I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.
I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.
I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.
I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=zk]To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.[/quote]
I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’ definition of atheism. It’s not black and white but more of a range.
1 = Strong Theist, 100% probability of God.
7 = Strong Atheist, 0% probability of God.Dawkins describes himself as a 6: “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist” He also believes that very few atheists would label themselves a 7. You may call his rating of 6 on the scale as agnostic, but Dawkins replies: “I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.”
Not to mention the fact that the burden of proof lies with the theists, not the atheists. One can’t prove something that doesn’t exist. If you don’t agree with that, then prove to me that The Easter Bunny does not exist.[/quote]
“I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden” is exactly how I feel. But I’m still not a 7.
I’m curious, Brian, are you a 7?
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m an atheist and proud of it.
[/quote]How are you defining atheist? Are you saying that you’re sure that there’s no supreme being?
To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m an atheist and proud of it.
[/quote]How are you defining atheist? Are you saying that you’re sure that there’s no supreme being?
To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m an atheist and proud of it.
[/quote]How are you defining atheist? Are you saying that you’re sure that there’s no supreme being?
To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m an atheist and proud of it.
[/quote]How are you defining atheist? Are you saying that you’re sure that there’s no supreme being?
To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.
Participant[quote=briansd1]I’m an atheist and proud of it.
[/quote]How are you defining atheist? Are you saying that you’re sure that there’s no supreme being?
To me, being an atheist by that definition is the same as being religious (in that it doesn’t make rational sense). If you’re sure there’s no god, you’re taking something on faith. You can’t possibly (rationally)know for sure that there is no supernatural force ruling the universe.
To say that, to you, the idea of a supreme being is ridiculous and so unlikely as to not merit concern (let alone base your life on one and start wars over them) is more rational, but isn’t really atheism.
Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball]Rustico a right-winger? How long have you been on this site?[/quote]
I didn’t say he was a right winger. I said his vague swipes at the president were inspired by the right-wing noise machine.
Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball]Rustico a right-winger? How long have you been on this site?[/quote]
I didn’t say he was a right winger. I said his vague swipes at the president were inspired by the right-wing noise machine.
Participant[quote=CardiffBaseball]Rustico a right-winger? How long have you been on this site?[/quote]
I didn’t say he was a right winger. I said his vague swipes at the president were inspired by the right-wing noise machine.
-
AuthorPosts
