Atheism

Right, you didn't mention atheism in the comment to which I made reference. You commented on a post about atheism with a straw man argument about ignorance.

I am not suggesting that atheism is nothing more than a belief.

I am saying that atheism concerns belief, specifically the lack or negation thereof.

InfraBlue wrote:

Right, you didn't mention atheism in the comment to which I made reference. You commented on a post about atheism with a straw man argument about ignorance.

There is absolutely NO straw man element to anything I said in my post. If there were, you would be quoting it...and arguing substantively on it.

InfraBlue wrote:

I am not suggesting that atheism is nothing more than a belief.

In a sense, neither am I. I have no idea of what anyone means when they say, "I am an atheist." Some mean they have a "belief" about the notion of gods existing...and some merely mean they lack the "belief" that "at least one god exists."

InfraBlue wrote:

I am saying that atheism concerns belief, specifically the lack or negation thereof.

I do not know what that means.

In any case, the genesis of what we are discussing began with a Hitchens' quotation Chai offered. Hitchens averred dismissiveness for claims offered without evidence.

I agreed by saying, "Which is why I dismiss the assertions "There is a GOD" and "There are no gods" with the same amount of disdain."

If you take exception to what I ACTUALLY WROTE THERE...tell me why you disagree and we can discuss it.

By the way...not only did I NOT mention "atheism" in that post...I did NOT mention "ignorance" either.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

Right, you didn't mention atheism in the comment to which I made reference. You commented on a post about atheism with a straw man argument about ignorance.

There is absolutely NO straw man element to anything I said in my post. If there were, you would be quoting it...and arguing substantively on it.

Seeing as how the post was about atheism and your response was about ignorance, your post was a straw man argument.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

I am not suggesting that atheism is nothing more than a belief.

In a sense, neither am I. I have no idea of what anyone means when they say, "I am an atheist." Some mean they have a "belief" about the notion of gods existing...and some merely mean they lack the "belief" that "at least one god exists."

InfraBlue wrote:

I am saying that atheism concerns belief, specifically the lack or negation thereof.

I do not know what that means.

There's the rub. You need to know the subject before you argue about it.

Fank Apisa wrote:

In any case, the genesis of what we are discussing began with a Hitchens' quotation Chai offered. Hitchens averred dismissiveness for claims offered without evidence.

I agreed by saying, "Which is why I dismiss the assertions "There is a GOD" and "There are no gods" with the same amount of disdain."

You expressed your agnosticism concerning gods. Understood.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you take exception to what I ACTUALLY WROTE THERE...tell me why you disagree and we can discuss it.

What I take exception to is that what you wrote isn't relevant to a thread about atheism thereby making what you wrote a straw man.

Frank Apisa wrote:

By the way...not only did I NOT mention "atheism" in that post...I did NOT mention "ignorance" either.

Right, you didn't mention atheism in that post which was a response to a post about atheism.

Right, you didn't mention ignorance, explicitly, but your post was about your agnosticism concerning gods, i.e. your ignorance about them.

If you think it was a straw man argument, you do not understand what a straw man argument is.

I doubt you actually think it to be a straw man argument. I think you are simply stuck with that assertion on your part...and lack the personality traits necessary to withdraw the assertion.

InfraBlue wrote:

I am saying that atheism concerns belief, specifically the lack or negation thereof.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not know what that means.

InfraBlue wrote:

There's the rub. You need to know the subject before you argue about it.

You are being unnecessarily nasty now. Try to stay under control.

So, you are saying that me writing about atheism...is NOT about atheism...and therefore a straw man?

C'mon.

By the way...not only did I NOT mention "atheism" in that post...I did NOT mention "ignorance" either.

The comment I made was appropriate. You made a comment about my comment that was not...and now you are floundering in an attempt to avoid acknowledging that you were wrong.

Sorry that kind of acknowledgement is so difficult for you. The need to acknowledge being wrong comes up often in Internet discussions for almost every participant. Train yourself to deal with it more maturely when it happens to you.

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you think it was a straw man argument, you do not understand what a straw man argument is.

I doubt you actually think it to be a straw man argument. I think you are simply stuck with that assertion on your part...and lack the personality traits necessary to withdraw the assertion.

If I don't actually think your response to be a straw man argument, then what do you suppose I think it to be?

Your response to a thread about atheism with assertions about agnosticism is a straw man argument.

Frank Apisa wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:

I am saying that atheism concerns belief, specifically the lack or negation thereof.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not know what that means.

InfraBlue wrote:

There's the rub. You need to know the subject before you argue about it.

You are being unnecessarily nasty now. Try to stay under control.

How is it nasty to point out that you do not know what the basic definition of atheism means?

Frank Apisa wrote:

So, you are saying that me writing about atheism...is NOT about atheism...and therefore a straw man?

C'mon.

but then, Frank Apisa had previously written wrote:

By the way...not only did I NOT mention "atheism" in that post...I did NOT mention "ignorance" either.

Heh, so you didn't mention atheism and didn't write about it, or you didn't mention atheism but wrote about it nonetheless. You've gotten yourself in a muddle.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The comment I made was appropriate. You made a comment about my comment that was not...and now you are floundering in an attempt to avoid acknowledging that you were wrong.

I wasn't wrong. The comment you made about agnosticism to a post about atheism wasn't appropriate; that's why it's a straw man.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sorry that kind of acknowledgement is so difficult for you. The need to acknowledge being wrong comes up often in Internet discussions for almost every participant. Train yourself to deal with it more maturely when it happens to you.

There is no such acknowledgement to make in regard to this instance.

. . . the idea of creation brings about an unnecessary paradox.

While our brains keep convincing us we need God and religion to keep us from slaughtering each other.

crackedhead wrote:

While our brains keep convincing us we need God and religion to keep us from slaughtering each other.

I've never needed any gods to keep me from slaughtering anyone, or even hurting them.

Former belief in gods as a child never kept me from doing whatever it was that a child does wrong.

But, having a belief does add comfort!