Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

My puzzle book uses different categories like extreme, but I can get to the end OK.

This verse seems to indicate that aliens made contact thousands of years ago-
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown" (Genesis 6:4)

Nobody has ever been able to translate the word 'Nephilim' which could mean "giants"...."the violent ones"...."the fallen ones"..."sons of God", in other words powerful beings who had descended to earth to interbreed with human women to boost the quality of human DNA and the gene pool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

So, returning to this threads title "Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?" the answer would seem to be "Yes" because whereas atheists would dismiss the above speculation out of hand, agnostics would at least remain neutral and non-committal about it..

When Wolf Blitzer asked Rebecca Vitsmun on CNN last May if she thanked “the Lord” that she and her family survived the tornado that had just ripped through Moore, Okla., she informed him that she is “actually an atheist.”

Then comedian Doug Stanhope answered her prayers.

With the help of 4,475 other non-believers, Stanhope launched the “Athiests Unite” Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign shortly after seeing the proud atheist living in the grief-stricken area of the Bible Belt, and ended up raising $125,760 within two months to help Vitsmun’s family rebuild their home that was completely destroyed in the storm.

“Saying ‘I’m an atheist’ in Oklahoma is like screaming ‘Jihad’ at airport security. That took some nuts,” Stanhope explains in a new video (above) addressing his successful fundraiser. ”

While many crowdfunding campaigns on Indiegogo rely on “perks” in exchange for a donation, Stanhope’s got absolutely nothing in return other than proving — as Stanhope wrote in his pitch — “you don’t need to believe in a god to have human compassion.”

Still, Stanhope took advantage of the perk system to poke more fun at Christianity, promising a “Get Out of Hell Free Card” to anyone donating $50, a “lucky break” to those donating $100, a “Phone Call from God” for $125, a “Guardian Angel,” and even “The Holy Grail” to someone willing to pony up $10,000.

Nobody claimed the Holy Grail, but one person was willing to part with $2,500 in exchange for “First Choice for Reincarnation,” because ”all those eagle & dolphin spots go fast.”

Stanhope says he did not launch the charitable campaign because he felt sympathy for Vitsmun, but did so “simply to be a prick to her Okie-Christian neighbors.”

For the record, Vitsmun was much more tolerant toward her neighbors’ faith, and told Blitzer at the time of the interview, “I don’t blame anybody for thanking the Lord.”

Ahhh...still not calm, I see.

Well...when you are, I will respond to some specific items.

As for "ignore your ****"...NEVER. I will read and enjoy every word you write. Laugh out loud at times!!!

I take the Heideggerian approach that "time" is co-extensive with "being". There are no "beings" except for ephemeral constructions by observers. There is no "reality" beyond agreement of descriptions among co-constructing observers.
(see the Rorty Clip pragmatists background to this).
The ontological status of mathematical entities like numbers may be a separate issue because unless such numbers are used to model descriptions of an "agreed word" their status is merely a function of the agreed combinatorial operations which can be applied to them as abstractions. Paul Cohen's work on the continuum hypothesis may be of some ontological significance to your views about "infinity" in this matter.

Once you call it 'god' you have given in to the theists and agnostics. You have accepted the meddling old man in the sky, like it or not.

Quote:

Ahhh...still not calm, I see.

you don't see very well then.

Quote:

Well...when you are, I will respond to some specific items.

it is another good defence mechanism. pretend that i am not calm enough for you to respond to me.

Quote:

As for "ignore your ****"...NEVER. I will read and enjoy every word you write. Laugh out loud at times!!!

yep. and when you have no argument against it anymore, and know that you have lost completely, you invent reasons to not respond.

a day in the mind of frank:
"oh no. cm just sent a long post with all these amazing points which all destroy my argument completely. ok i need to buy some time so i'll use the excuse that cm is not calm. while i pretend/hope that cm is not calm, i will rack my brains 24/7 to think of ANY possible argument to his amazing post. then if i ever do come up with anything, i will concede that he is calm, so that i can make my point. then, when he rebuts it easily, i will again have to resort to defence mechanism B: CM is not calm!

if that doesn't work, i can always fall back to mechanism A: CM is pontificating!! and i love it because it entertains me!!"

Senseless.

anonymously99 wrote:

Senseless.

I agree, disagree, both agree and disagree and neither agree or disagree... if there was an 'I'. It's all senseless... and the joke is how we all try to make sense of it...

igm wrote:

anonymously99 wrote:

Senseless.

I agree, disagree, both agree and disagree and neither agree or disagree... if there was an 'I'. It's all senseless... and the joke is how we all try to make sense of it...

Some... Some... most... Some... seem...