******Official politics thread ******

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No you simply do not understand the difference between agnostic and atheist by their practice. Agnostics say you can't know God, but don't deny God's existence, they just don't know. Atheists, many/most of them deny the existence of God, some even to militant levels trying to change laws and cultures of nations to fit their own unproven beliefs.

The discussion concerned the proper definition of 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. By saying 'many/most' atheists you acknowledge that not all atheists deny God's existence. Therefore an atheist does not necessarily deny God's or any gods' existence. And therefore you're using atheist and agnostic incorrectly.

This is what you should have said:

"No you simply do not understand the difference between agnostic atheists and positive atheists by their practice".

That would be correct terminology. I think if you were to press most so-called positive atheists and ask the right questions they would actually admit to being agnostic atheists.

What you talked about next is an entirely different discussion. Even then I disagree with you. You're looking for the word antitheist here. If people were to be honest about what atheism is they'd see that atheists are much more prominent in our world than statistics tend to say and most of these people have only a neglible effect on theists.

Atheism is not a religion. I know a lot of theists want it to be because it makes it easy to push away. The fact that you take issue with people wanting to be able to be free from religion betrays that you're stereotypically hypocritical when it comes to the concept of freedom, like so many conservatives are. "Freedom of religion but not the freedom of no religion!" and the more tolerant "you can be an atheist but you need to shut up!".

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The discussion concerned the proper definition of 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. By saying 'many/most' atheists you acknowledge that not all atheists deny God's existence. Therefore an atheist does not necessarily deny God's or any gods' existence. And therefore you're using atheist and agnostic incorrectly.

This is what you should have said:

"No you simply do not understand the difference between agnostic atheists and positive atheists by their practice".

That would be correct terminology. I think if you were to press most so-called positive atheists and ask the right questions they would actually admit to being agnostic atheists.

What you talked about next is an entirely different discussion. Even then I disagree with you. You're looking for the word antitheist here. If people were to be honest about what atheism is they'd see that atheists are much more prominent in our world than statistics tend to say and most of these people have only a neglible effect on theists.

Atheism is not a religion. I know a lot of theists want it to be because it makes it easy to push away. The fact that you take issue with people wanting to be able to be free from religion betrays that you're stereotypically hypocritical when it comes to the concept of freedom, like so many conservatives are. "Freedom of religion but not the freedom of no religion!" and the more tolerant "you can be an atheist but you need to shut up!".

No it just means some Atheists are not really Atheists, but Agnostics. Seriously, I've encountered atheists that really didn't know what an agnostic is. They are not taught about agnosticism in their schools, so what it doesn't exist? No, it's a social club, dude. Atheism is a hip group to be in for some, like some go to fun churches that do this and that but really don't believe in a God nor teach of such, but have lots of weird psychology and a dating scene etc.

Those people claiming to be atheists with their spaghetti god, they don't want to be sounding stupid saying they are agnostic to some militant atheist trying to wipe the world clean of any belief in a God. So like I said at the beginning, it's just a tag, much like some churches are tags, a place to just fit in socially and have fun.

And that's by modern design, I mean they teach you what to think, how to fit in, the questions to ask and those not to. It becomes an accessible voting block, gives even more power to the state, more money for schrool funding, closer to a utopian envisioned goal. Just don't get excommunicated (defunded) from your religion by saying this stuff openly, m-kay? Then you may get stuck on some Fake Science project like zero-point energy which there is no social construct recovery from.

[Rader]

Originally Posted by Jarnauga [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am myself fighting hard to remember that the majority of people didn't vote for golfer in chief

Hey Jar Jar, you fucking idiot, majorities voted for your God Obama twice.

[Csihar]

Maskedmelon is a much better to discuss with. He actually responds to what you say and you can discuss things point by point. He also doesn't go off on tangents ripe with false dichotomies. You're a smart and knowledgeable guy but if you would just reprogram some of your bad qualities you'd be a great person to listen to and learn from. If.

Thanks for the responses.

[rebeccablack]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No it just means some Atheists are not really Atheists, but Agnostics.

atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. most agnostics are also soft (negative) atheists, whether they identify as such or not. they are not the same thing though.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by rebeccablack [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. most agnostics are also soft (negative) atheists, whether they identify as such or not. they are not the same thing though.

That's right, it's not the same thing, which is why I just think of it as social groups and tags to fit in with. I just look at individual actions on a whole for the most part, as humans often gravitate towards being fake all too often anyway. But then there are the devout priests in both those groups, doing everything for the cause. Just we tend to produce more athiest minded students these days, or at least willing to join into the group.

Maybe Jar Jar can tell us how it is on Naboo! lol

[Csihar]

Originally Posted by rebeccablack [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. most agnostics are also soft (negative) atheists, whether they identify as such or not. they are not the same thing though.

Thank you.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Csihar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maskedmelon is a much better to discuss with. He actually responds to what you say and you can discuss things point by point. He also doesn't go off on tangents ripe with false dichotomies. You're a smart and knowledgeable guy but if you would just reprogram some of your bad qualities you'd be a great person to listen to and learn from. If.

Thanks for the responses.

I just may disagree on points and not want to hash it over again and again, then the reading gets long and eyelids get heavy, melons sometimes will. Yeah I introduce tangents, I hit topics on every side conceivable, sometimes even inconceivable, but with the topic still in focus if seemingly only in the rear view mirror. Imagine chess with words. But it doesn't translate very well to written form, except for the hardcore reader that doesn't complain after two or three paragraphs condensed. Salute!

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science isn't by consensus, it's by proven result. I mean you really just defined what I said about much of scientists being locked into old world propaganda to control not only a population and their ideas but also how they buy or consume.

Take GMO's for example. Scientsits invent ways to feed billions, but americans think its poison.

Scientists try to inform them that it is not.

But corperations think that americas "well get confused" if they label their food. So they lobby politicians and create fake advertisment campaigns, literally to confuse consumers... So they dont have to label whats in their food.

Daywolf: you support the corporations, not the science.

[rebeccablack]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I just may disagree on points and not want to hash it over again and again, then the reading gets long and eyelids get heavy, melons sometimes will. Yeah I introduce tangents, I hit topics on every side conceivable, sometimes even inconceivable, but with the topic still in focus if seemingly only in the rear view mirror.

you're actually kind of bad at reading other peoples' posts and responding to their actual points. instead you just kind of insert whatever non sequitur gets you to the point you'd like to make, which makes having a discussion with you pretty difficult since you don't actually respond to people. i'm sure it feels to you like you win every argument though.