16
   

@MyFellowAtheists: How Big an Atheist Are You?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 07:04 am
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

The problem is not him, or just him, it is the rest of us, the feed.



This is an example of a post from the guy you are feeding...while questioning my character in this forum, Ossobuco.

Setanta at his usual best:



Quote:
Why don't you shove that "arts major" horseshit up your prissy, anal retentive ass, you arrogant, conceited bitch. You don't know what i studied at university because i have refused to play that snotty game with you.


http://able2know.org/topic/141106-535#post-5749683


Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 07:47 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Apparently you did not read carefully enough.

http://able2know.org/topic/267220-2#post-5884690

Apparently I did not. Mea culpa.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  5  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 07:51 am
@Frank Apisa,
In fairness, this is a thread for atheists to discuss what type of atheist they are. Why don't you let them do that instead of insisting they're all wrong, and you're right?

Because that's what you're dong. It's not about logic or reason, it's about you being right.

I never thought there could be such a thing as a fanatical agnostic until I met you.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 08:09 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

In fairness, this is a thread for atheists to discuss what type of atheist they are. Why don't you let them do that instead of insisting they're all wrong, and you're right?

Because that's what you're dong. It's not about logic or reason, it's about you being right.

I never thought there could be such a thing as a fanatical agnostic until I met you.


Where have I insisted they are all wrong...and that I am right?

We have argued about the dictionary definition of atheist. Atheists, according to the definition most atheists here prefer, insist I am an atheist.

I brought that up in my first post. Here is the entire post:

Quote:
My position on the subtext of your question, Kolyo, is:

I do not know if there is a GOD (gods); I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist; I see no reason that suggests gods are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

In an atheist site where I occasionally post...the regulars (I originally wrote that "inmates") INSIST that because of that description, I am an atheist. I do not consider myself to be an atheist.

I certainly do not consider questions about the ultimate REALITY (including questions about the possible existence of gods) to be uninteresting or unworthy of consideration...as so many apparently do. I recognize and acknowledge that there seems to be no way to ever actually answer them, but speculation about REALITY IS, to me, extremely interesting and worthy of discussion.

Anyway...if you are one of the atheists who think that because of my description of my position, I have to be an atheist...

...what do you think? I don't think I can be especially objective...I will insist I am not an atheist.

But I am interesting in hearing how much of an atheist you think I am.


It is reasonable, it is courteous, and it is on point.

Here is a link to my second post…a reasonable, courteous post that is on point.


http://able2know.org/topic/267220-6#post-5886128

Here is a link to my third post…a reasonable, courteous post that is on point.

http://able2know.org/topic/267220-6#post-5886268

Then Edgar said I am full of ****…and responded reasonably.

What is it with so many atheists here that causes them to get all worked up when someone reasonably and courteously challenges their takes on matters?

Why do you have to accuse me of insisting they are all wrong...and I am right...when I have never done that nor have I inferred it.

It is getting more and more apparent that the atheists in this forum do not want anyone to challenge them on anything.

As respectfully as possible, Izzy, that doesn't work for me.

izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 08:18 am
@Frank Apisa,
Why do you feel the need to challenge them? Shouldn't they be allowed to believe whatever they want? It's not like they're foisting their beliefs on anyone else.

And it's not like you've brought anything new to the discussion, everything you've said here you've said a hundred times before, like a broken record. Nobody is in any doubt as to what you believe. Now be courteous, and give it a rest.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 08:35 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Why do you feel the need to challenge them?


For the same reason you are challenging me. This is a forum devoted to discussions and challenging ideas.

Quote:
Shouldn't they be allowed to believe whatever they want? It's not like they're foisting their beliefs on anyone else.


They should be allowed to "believe" whatever they want...and it would not matter to me whether they want to "foist their beliefs" on me or anyone.

I am simply calling attention to the fact that they have "beliefs"...and discussing those "beliefs" with them.

What do you see as wrong with that?

I see people discussing "beliefs" with other people everywhere in this forum. Why do you think it so objectionable that I do it...especially since I do it, for the most part, more reasonably and courteously than many others do?


Quote:
And it's not like you've brought anything new to the discussion, everything you've said here you've said a hundred times before, like a broken record. Nobody is in any doubt as to what you believe. Now be courteous, and give it a rest.


There is not a lot NEW coming from you...but I am not asking you to "give it a rest", Izzy. And I am courteous...often a lot more courteous than you are to me.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 08:52 am
@ossobuco,
I started to appreciate baroque architecture quite late in my stay there, was an acquired taste...

Thanks for the pornocracy thing. You definitely piked my interest there... Shocked But yes, 'so-called'. From what I just read, the leaders were not 'a bunch of popes'. These popes were only the puppets of the real masters, or rather, mistresses. And the tradition calling them "prostitutes" is i suspect marred with sexism, because if a man had done the same thing, nobody would speak of a "prostitute"... Theodora and Marozia seem to have been Roman noblewomen who just grabbed power when the could, or where they saw it dangling... Wink

From wiki:
Quote:
Marozia, born Maria and also known as Mariuccia or Mariozza (c. 890 – 937), was a Roman noblewoman who was the alleged mistress of Pope Sergius III and was given the unprecedented titles senatrix ("senatoress") and patricia of Rome by Pope John X.

Edward Gibbon wrote of her that the "influence of two sister prostitutes, Marozia and Theodora[1] was founded on their wealth and beauty, their political and amorous intrigues: the most strenuous of their lovers were rewarded with the Roman tiara, and their reign may have suggested to darker ages the fable of a female pope. The bastard son, two grandsons, two great grandsons, and one great great grandson of Marozia—a rare genealogy—were seated in the Chair of St. Peter." Pope John XIII was her nephew, the offspring of her younger sister Theodora. From this description, the term "pornocracy" has become associated with the effective rule in Rome of Theodora and her daughter Marozia through male surrogates.

Early life

Marozia was born about 890. She was the daughter of the Roman consul Theophylact, Count of Tusculum, and of Theodora, the real power in Rome, whom Liutprand of Cremona characterized as a "shameless whore... [who] exercised power on the Roman citizenry like a man."

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 08:53 am
@Frank Apisa,
You're not discussing their beliefs, you're telling them they're wrong, and you're right.

And, as an Agnostic, shouldn't you just leave them to it?
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 08:57 am
@izzythepush,
The man had an epiphany. Now he wants to force it on the world. Like every reborn believer.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:09 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You're not discussing their beliefs, you're telling them they're wrong, and you're right.


I am not doing anything of the sort...as far as I can see. I am discussing alternate views of some of the matters being discussed. But in a discussion like this, there are moments of disagreement...and one side may be right and one wrong. ("Some atheists "believe" there are no gods"...versus..."Atheists do not "believe" there are no gods"...is a reasonable difference to discuss.)

How about you quoting what you see to be me telling them they are wrong...and that I am right. And we can see if in fact, the matter at hand indicates that I am right...and they are wrong.


Quote:
And, as an Agnostic, shouldn't you just leave them to it?


Well...I can certainly participate in the discussion, Izzy...and I can make such points as I deem appropriate. Just as I did in my first posting here.

Go back to my first posting...and tell me what you see wrong or inappropriate with it. Then we can move on to the second one.

I honestly do not see what your problem is. You simply seem to be saying that I should butt out of this conversation for some reason.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:10 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

The man had an epiphany. Now he wants to force it on the world. Like every reborn believer.


Your first comment to me in this thread was along the lines of "That's a bunch of ****", Edgar.

You haven't gotten much past that quality of commentary.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:21 am
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
I have a political ideology. No question there. It rests somewhat left of Roosevelt's New Deal. But it doesn't push for religion or atheist ideas, just pushes back when the right to them is encroached.

And I'm on the same wavelength. Modern democratic thought includes secularism as a sine qua non, an obvious feature. But the idea of separation of church and state had to be fought for. And historically, it was a fight that anticlericalists fought, and are still fighting. Eg Charlie Hebdo. This attitude to, or relationship with religion is/was not passive but combative, and rightly so.

IMO there is no mental firewall between a person's political thought and his or her religious or philosophical outlook.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:34 am
@Olivier5,
If I had an ideology related to religion or atheism, I hope I would have the good sense to keep it to myself. Live and let live is best, when at all possible.
edgarblythe
 
  4  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:35 am
@Frank Apisa,
You haven't changed a syllable since your original post on Abuzz.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:42 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

You haven't changed a syllable since your original post on Abuzz.


Yeah...I have...although, like you, in some areas I have been consistent.

In any case, I have made reasonable, intelligent, courteous contributions in many areas. At least as many as you have.

But you are in one of your insult moods...so go to it. If it makes your life more bearable, who am I to argue.
Thomas
 
  5  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
What is it with so many atheists here that causes them to get all worked up when someone reasonably and courteously challenges their takes on matters?

I don't think that's the atheist in me. That has to be the agnostic in me.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  5  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
I only speak out when you start making false assumptions on a thread like this and then make a crusade about it. On most threads I let you rave on without protest, whether or not I agree.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 09:57 am
@edgarblythe,
Live and let live is a great principle. In practice though, cultural wars are being fought. Whether you want to engage in them or not if for you to decide, obviously, but they happen in all societies. Boundaries are being tested and pushed all the time. There are also perfectly appropriate discussions in all societies about the new means offered to us by science (eg human cloning, or choosing the sex of babies), some of which have moral or religious implications. Societies are more than the sum of independent parts.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 10:01 am
@Olivier5,
Which is why I said earlier that I am prepared to push back if atheism or religion pushes beyond their boundaries.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Feb, 2015 10:17 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I only speak out when you start making false assumptions on a thread like this and then make a crusade about it. On most threads I let you rave on without protest, whether or not I agree.


What specific "false assumption" have I made in this thread that is causing you to "speak out" the way you have.

You call my considerations about these things "****"...and that I have not changed a syllable since my original post.

Quote what I have said in this thread that is a false assumption...and let's discuss if it is or not...rather than try to deal with this "insult mode" that you are into.

Give a specific...quote it.
 

Related Topics

Atheism - Discussion by littlek
The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2019 at 06:48:42