Agnosticism for Idiots; or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the People Who Hate Atheists

[beam me up scottie]

It's been suggested that people in A/A won't like my thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218160599 in the religion forum so I figured I'd cross post it in case you want to respond here.

If you want context, check out the thread How to Love an Atheist (If You’re Very Religious)

[mr blur]

1. Well, I can't see why,

but then I can't see the post that might suggest that, so it's win-win.

And I didn't see your 'context' thread because Ignore is my friend and I don't have time for that self-righteous drivel. Rather sad to see that someone still has their atheist addiction, though.

[beam me up scottie]

2. The contents of it pissed me off.

Last edited Sat Nov 1, 2014, 08:40 PM - Edit history (1)

And the redefinitions, always with the same bullshit. I joined DU ten years ago and people still lie about atheism for fun and profit.

If you're an uppity atheist you're damaged, if you're properly deferential you just don't "want" to believe in god.


eta context:

I consider myself mostly agnostic, unknowing but respectful of ALL other religions....

And for the purposes of consistency, I have decided to include atheism and anti-theism as forms of religion or systems of belief.

And accordingly try to be sympathetic. But if engaged in debate, I seldom let their absurd statements go unchallenged.

I learned over the last few years that some number of atheists, hopefully not representative of atheists generally, are really defensive and exhibit many of the same signs we see in cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, and PTSD generally.

These include:

Screaming, shouting, yelling

Exhibit distrust of others

Exhibit emotional outbursts

Have low self-esteem or confidence

Express feelings of hopelessness

Exhibit self-injurious behaviors

Refuse offers of assistance

Be fearful of intimacy and touch

Express self-hate, self-blame, guilt or shame

Have attention and learning disorders

Engage in destructive activities

Learn passive/aggressive behaviors


Agnosticism seems to me to be the most passive and tolerant position to maintain. It takes a strong and confident person to admit that they aren't sure and don't know while not objecting to others' insistence upon a different POV.

I agree with you.

A lot of hurt is done under the color of "religious practice", some of it leaves scars that don't go away.

And it doesn't take torture to do severe and lasting harm; subtle but daily cuts can lead to horrible wounds.

I have to say, however, that I wish we could find some common ground and agree, at least, that there are reasonably two groups of atheists:

Those who have been harmed and feel the pain still for standing up for their non-belief.

And others who simply don't want to believe but haven't been harmed.

Both groups are atheists, but the second group is often chastised and insulted by some in the first group, so I find that a narrow and exclusive point of view.

C'est la vie.

[mr blur]

26. Sorry bmus, didn't make myself clear,

My post ended up sounding the opposite of what I was trying to say.

Agree completely with you too.

[beam me up scottie]

87. No, you are fine.

I know what you meant, I thought I'd post a couple of the comments from the thread that inspired me.

My bad, I should have been more clear.

[AlbertCat]

45. None of those "exhibited signs" have anything to do with Atheism.

I could find the exact same behavior for...oh... fundigelicals. Or maybe, people who hate green beans, or people who breath air.

All this armchair psychology over simply not believing in gods.

How's this for armchair psych:

Believers put so much energy into believing that they wrongly assume not believing is some kind of emotional chore. It's not. Indeed, it jettisons all kinds of baggage.

[LostOne4Ever]

3. As both an agnostic and an atheist I completely agree with you

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 12:17 AM - Edit history (1)

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3]Not only that, the definition of agnosticism as a third way between atheism and agnosticism is in and of itself contradictory.

Belief is by definition holding a position to be true. Disbelief, is by definition, not holding a position to be true.

Claiming neither to believe or disbelieve is the same as holding a position to be true and not true at the same time. The DEFINITION of a CONTRADICTION. The only way for this definition to work is to deny the definition of the word atheist and redefine the word to suit their ends.

So as much as they try to claim otherwise, they are the ones trying to tell US what label to use. It has nothing to do with agnosticism, and everything to do with the definition of atheist.

[beam me up scottie]

4. Exactly.

How many people are agnostic about belief in other gods, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Cartoonist]

5. There are two types of agnostics

There is only one type of theist: someone who believes in God.

There is only one type of atheist: someone who does not believe in God.

There are two types of agnostics: a junkie who can't give it up, or a boat without a rudder.

[cantbeserious]

6. So One Ignores That There Is Neither Evidence For Nor Evidence Against A God

eom

[Lordquinton]

9. That there is no evidence against a god is irrelevant

in light of there being no evidence for any god, and all evidence that has been put forward over the millennia has been countered.

Believers are making the positive claim, they need to put forward anything at all, just one little thing showing there is merit to what they claim. Until that point the god hypotheses can safely be labeled as false and put in a cupboard in the basement next to the other bad ideas.

[cantbeserious]

10. Likewise - Atheism Cannot Offer Proof That God Does Not Exist - Both Camps Rely On Belief

The fact appears to be that the Hypothesis of God is untestable - hence the reliance on belief by both theists and non-theists.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. There is no belief in atheism.

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 12:18 AM - Edit history (1)

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3] It is simply not believing (holding to be true) in any gods. This is the definition used by the Oxford english dictionary as well as every major atheist rights organization in the US.

Not believing does not mean that one necessarily holds the contra-position (that there are no gods). It simply means one does not hold the position as true. There is no belief in that.

I think you are mistaking a SUB-SET of atheists for all atheists. There is a group of atheists, called explicit atheists, who claim that there are no gods. Since they believe there are no gods they obviously do not hold the position that there is at least one god (theism) to be true, and therefore are atheist.

However, there is a second subset of atheists called implicit atheist who hold neither position to be true. Again, this is not a belief.

Sources:[/font]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/belief
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/disbelief
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?
http://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/18391-what-is-a-freethinker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_atheism
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3]Edit: And this is how most of the posters in this forum define the term:[/font]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123022814

[cantbeserious]

13. Without Proof - There Is Only Belief And DisBelief

eom

[LostOne4Ever]

17. For if you had proof

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3]It would be knowledge.

We have no knowledge of whether gods exist or not. Therefore, we are agnostic.
We do not have a belief in any gods. Therefore, we are atheists.

Thus we are both atheists and agnostics. We are agnostic atheists!

We have no beliefs to be ashamed of, or for which we need to apologize.

In fact, that is something to which we should be proud!

[beam me up scottie]

16. Thanks.

Not sure if it's a problem with reading comprehension or a problem accepting the fact that they're wrong.

[Lordquinton]

12. Ok, so you admit that unicorns might exist

or Santa Clause, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other thing people believe in.

Atheism doesn't have the burden of proof, and if you put forth a bad hypotheses (ie: one that cannot be tested (except that over the course of thousands of years it has been, and always failed)) you must supply the evidence. "God exists, prove me wrong" is not how it works.

[cantbeserious]

14. God Does Not Exist - Prove Me Wrong -- God Does Exist - Prove Me Wrong -- Neither Assertion Is Testable

eom

[Lordquinton]

24. And the burden is on the one who proposes the idea, IE the theist

not the one who rejects it.

[NeoGreen]

25. Maybe this will help simplify the concept...

Last edited Sun Nov 2, 2014, 10:20 AM - Edit history (1)

...



So, now we should all start paying tribute the the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

The whole religious 'no evidence against' meme, is based on vacuous logic.

[cantbeserious]

28. How Can The Request For Proof - Pro Or Con - Be Considered Vacuous Logic

eom

[NeoGreen]

31. (nt)

[cantbeserious]

32. Ridicule - One Of The Logical Fallacies

eom

[NeoGreen]

33. Yes it is...

...and I'm sorry of you saw my post as ridicule, but that was not the intent.

I am merely shaking my head and declining to respond any further.

[cantbeserious]

35. Roger - Tough Topic - Around Which Some Are Mightily Conflicted

eom

[NeoGreen]

36. But...

...can they be serious?

(sorry, couldn't help myself)

[cantbeserious]

37. Once Again With The Ridicule - Quite Serious In Discussing The Unknowable

eom

[NeoGreen]

38. Again, not ridicule...

...I was trying to be a tiny bit humorous with your user name.

Apparently, I have failed again.

[cantbeserious]

40. One Presumes That The Irony Of Usernames Is Lost On Some

eom

[AlbertCat]

65. Tough Topic

Not really.

1st... we must start with definitions. Define "god".

Then we can go about testing those claims 1st... that that thing as defined does what its definition says it does.

If you can't get that sorted out (and it never does) then it's not really worth debating.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

49. After my divorce in the early 80s

I was struggling to raise my 3 kids. My ex suddenly up and stopped paying child support and after about 3 months, I was having trouble getting food. I applied for food stamps and the woman told me I didn't qualify due to the amount of child support I was getting. I explained that he had sent nothing in 3 months and she asked me if I had proof that he hadn't sent any.

I'll ask you just like I asked her. How do you prove someone isn't sending you money?

Answer is, you can't. She denied me and I went back a few days later, got a different person and qualified.

[cantbeserious]

50. Yes - Traditional Logic Expounds That A Negative Cannot Be Proved - However

Given the metaphysics of God, this rule of logic breaks down since there is no recognizable proof one way or another.

Some of the theists hang on to their religious icons and history to justify belief.

The non-theists, in some cases, hang on to this rule of logic, that a negative cannot be proven, to justify belief.

That said, there is significant belief on both sides of the question.

[skepticscott]

51. Your incessant and belligerrent claims

that all atheists "believe" there is no god are just so much made up nonsense.

Did you even grasp that nothing in empirical inquiry is "proven"? Atheists and other rational thinkers understand that. You, it seems, not so much. But your lack of comprehension on the subject makes your posts look laughably unconvincing.

Try again.

[NeoGreen]

52. Playing chess...

... once again:

[skepticscott]

59. Oh, just getting

a passive-aggressive provocateur to expose enough of their crap so that no one here ever takes them seriously. Or so they just get banned. Worth a little trouble.

[NeoGreen]

63. You are a better man...

...better atheist, than I.

I was ready to post a "What I learned Today...:

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration

or, aka..the best defense a checkers player has while playing chess.


and,

Metaphysics: The word "metaphysics" derives from the Greek words μετά (metá, "beyond", "upon" or "after&quot and φυσικά (physiká, "physics&quot . That which is beyond what is real.

Thought experiments about the nature of what is real are fine, in of themselves, but when it comes to real world decisions about day to day living, a little healthy empiricism does a body good.

[cantbeserious]

55. Civil Discourse Yes - Belligerence - I Don't Think So

eom

[LostOne4Ever]

54. This is your last warning before I contact the hosts of this forum

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 12:23 AM - Edit history (1)

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3]We do not have a significant belief.

Quit telling us that you know what we think more than we do

or

[font color=red size=8em face=Impact] LEAVE THIS GROUP AND DON'T RETURN [/font]

[cantbeserious]

57. Ok - So We Have Established That This Group Is Not Open To Metaphysical Discourse - Bye, Bye!

eom

[LostOne4Ever]

60. It is open to metaphysical discourse

Last edited Mon Nov 3, 2014, 12:23 AM - Edit history (1)

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3]What is it not open to is bigotry against atheists and/or agnostics.

Insisting that you know what we do or do not believe, when we have explicitly told you otherwise, is bigotry. That is not okay.

So long and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out!

[cantbeserious]

61. No Bigotry - I Am Agnostic - That Said - This Group Appears Hostile To Challenging Discussion

Bye Bye

[LostOne4Ever]

64. Yes bigotry

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3]Telling a group that you know what they think better than they do, when you have been told by said group that is wrong, is bigotry.

You may be an agnostic, but you have shown a clear and persistent bigotry against atheists. Being an agnostic or atheist does not give you a pass to be bigoted against the other group. Further, It does not mean you cannot be bigoted against your own demographic.

I have given you a variety of sources, a proof, and a link to testimonials showing that you are wrong. You have ignored all of that and insisted you know what we are thinking more than we do. Again, bigotry.

We don't tolerate bigotry against atheists here.


[font size=7em color=red face=Impact]NOW GET OUT AND DON'T RETURN![/font]

[Arugula Latte]

84. See ya!

[Arugula Latte]

83. The burden of proof is on the person asserting that something does exist.

You can say: "There is neither evidence for nor evidence against a flying unicorn." The person asserting that there actually IS a flying unicorn is the one who needs to cough up the evidence.

[Promethean]

7. There is too much hostility around this subject.

Honestly if someone goes about their life never really thinking or caring about religion then all I can say is good for them. If they want to deflect the religious by calling themselves something neutral and non-obligatory like "agnostic" then that is their right. In the end they are exactly what threatens religion, more so than atheist activists are. They are the great mass who just doesn't care about religion and wants it to leave them alone. They are effectively living the ultimate solution, the atheist end game, where religion is at most a note in history books.

[beam me up scottie]

20. It's the redefinition of what I am that I object to.

Outspoken atheists do not threaten religion, they threaten religious privilege and discrimination. Our rights are not guaranteed, they're fought for tooth and nail by people like those at the FFRF. By people who won't stfu and sit down anymore.

The people who don't care about religion can only peacefully exist in a world where their right to not give a shit is protected by others.

[Tobin S.]

8. I prefer the agnostic label over the atheist label

even though I identify more clearly with atheists. There is no religion that I can be a part of nor will there ever be one. For me, agnosticism simply means that I do not know what will happen to me after I die. I can say with almost certainty that nothing will happen, I will cease to exist, but I'm really not 100% sure. Maybe 99.9%, but not 100%. It is a slight distinction, but still a distinction.

It has nothing to do with wanting to appear more respectful in the eyes of those who are religious. I really don't care. Believe what you will or will not. Just don't try to make religion the law of the land. That's my main issue in regards to religion. I live happily without religion and I want that to stay that way in our country in particular and I want the rest of the people on the planet to have the choice to enjoy that freedom.

[cantbeserious]

15. Theism - Atheism -- All About The Existence Or Non-Existence Of God - Religion Matters Little

eom

[beam me up scottie]

18. It apparently matters enough for you to harass posters in this group.

You keep telling us what we believe and you don't care when we tell you you're wrong.

It's intolerant and unwelcome; we get enough abuse in other forums so please stop posting in my thread.

Go bully someone else.

[cantbeserious]

19. Harassment - This Is Discussion On Semantics, Language And Definitions

eom

[beam me up scottie]

21. Then discuss the other definitions of atheism.

The term atheism may refer either to:

(rejection of belief): an explicit rejection of belief, with or without a denial that any deities exist (explicit atheism),

(absence of belief): an absence of belief in the existence of any deities (weak atheism or soft atheism),

(affirmative belief): an explicit belief that no gods exist (strong atheism or hard atheism).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/atheism

[cantbeserious]

22. If A Word Has Multiple Primary Definitions - How Useful Is That Word In Practice

eom

[Fumesucker]

30. There are many kinds of cancer

Does that make the word cancer not useful in practice?

[cantbeserious]

34. No - There Are Many Manifestations Of Cancer - All Share Similar Traits - One Being Unchecked Growth

eom

[Fumesucker]

39. And all definitions of atheism share a similar trait, a lack of belief in a god or gods

[cantbeserious]

41. And Since The Existence Or Non-Existence Of God Cannot Be Established

Atheists Also Have A Belief - Just As Theists Also Have A Belief.

Without Proof, There Is Only Belief - Pro Or Con.

[Fumesucker]

42. Ah, but it is possible to convince an atheist of the falsity of his belief

Show me sufficiently convincing evidence and I will happily concede God exists, I'm not emotionally attached to my view.

On the other hand there is no evidence that can convince the theist that God does not exist.

[cantbeserious]

44. Theists That No Longer Believe - Many Links On Changes

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/30/151681248/from-minister-to-atheist-a-story-of-losing-faith

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/atheist-ministers-leading-faithful/story?id=12004359

https://www.religionnews.com/2014/04/24/losing-religion-clergy-longer-believe-gather-online/

http://www.exminister.org/Haught-clergy-who-quit.html

http://www.clergyproject.org/

[Fumesucker]

46. I was once a theist, many US atheists were raised in theist households

It wasn't evidence that gave me the idea there was no God, exactly the opposite in fact.

There is no evidence that can prove there is no God, not to me, not to you, not to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Bill Maher.

For some reason you seem to have forgotten your words upthread, I'll post them here to refresh your memory.

So One Ignores That There Is Neither Evidence For Nor Evidence Against A God

Of course there is a huge lack of evidence that implies there is no God but that's not proof.

[LostOne4Ever]

47. No we do not

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3]Again atheists simply don't believe in the existence of god. That does not mean we believe there are no gods.

I already gave you a list of definitions proving this. I also gave you a link to multiple posters here defining atheism wherein the majority of us said the same thing.

I also explained to you the difference between implicit and explicit atheism.

Let me break down for you how illogical your statement using math logic.[/font]

You are claiming that not believing in god means we hold the opposite belief that there are no god or :

-p=>q

Where
p=believing that there is at least one god
-p=not believing that there is at least one god
q=believing that there are no gods

The symbol => means that this is an implication. Implications are always true unless the antecedent is true while the consequent is false.

Now lets see if this hold true by trying to find a counter-example to break the implication.

As liberals we believe regardless of race should have equal rights. Therefore, we do not believe caucasian americans should have more rights than African American. The opposite belief is that african americans should have more rights than caucasian americans. However we don't believe in the opposite belief either as we believe they should have equal rights.

IE
p=believe caucasians should have more rights. We hold this to be false.
-p=not believe caucasians should have more rights. We hold this to be true.
q=believe that african americans should have more rights. We hold this to be false.

-p=>q

Breaking this into a truth table:

T=>F

Again this is the only way an implication can be false. Therefore:

-p=>q is false. It does not work. -p does NOT imply q. This makes sense in that just because you are not heading north does not mean you are heading south.

QED

[font color=teal face=papyrus size=3]Your statement that atheism is a belief therefore is ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONAL as PROVEN by the above.

[font color=red size=5em face=Impact]FURTHERMORE, when you insist upon telling atheists what we do or do not believe when we have told you specifically that your statement is not true, that is BIGOTRY against us. THIS IS THE ATHEIST AND AGNOSTIC SAFEHAVEN. THIS IS RUDE. THIS IS DISRESPECTFUL and it IS BIGOTED.

YOU DO NOT GET TO TELL US WHAT WE DO OR DO NOT BELIEVE!

Either apologize and delete your offensive posts or GET OUT!!![/font]

[mr blur]

69. Atheism is not a belief,

Any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Do you expect us to accept that you didn't know this?

Either you are being deliberately dense or you can't help it. I suspect the former but if it's the latter then perhaps you should choose your battles more wisely.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. give it a fucking rest.

not believing in something is not "a belief", it is a lack of belief.

Off is not a channel on the tv.

[skepticscott]

48. The words

"Word", "Has", "Multiple", "Primary" and "Definition"all have multiple primary definitions. And yet you seeme to find them useful enough to communicate your "meaning", as laughably mistaken as that "meaning" was.

Try again. Your trolling needs work. (Btw, "trolling", "needs" and "work" all have multiple primary definitions too, so if you understand this enough to respond, you've torpedoed your own point).

[cantbeserious]

53. Nice Try - No Dice - If The Words Have Multiple Meanings - Then Their Utility Is Limited

Since the words can then be "cherry-picked" to meet any particular point of view and related argument.

So, given that imprecision of language, how can there ever be agreement on a meta-physical concept like God?

In the end, one person’s proof becomes but a bad hypothesis for another person.

Ultimately, all one is left with is belief around the concept of God - pro or con.

Yet, there is a third way - we don't know - will never know - so stop working to know an unknowable.

[skepticscott]

56. Then cherry-picking is apparently just what you've done

And you've apparently missed the irony that "cherry picking" also has multiple meanings. Apparently that didn't stop you from making use of it

[cantbeserious]

58. Ridicule - An Established Logical Fallacy

eom

[skepticscott]

62. Ridicule..following on the heels of a simple logical argument

that makes you look even more foolish...priceless.

I'm sure on your planet, passive-aggressive crap counts as "challenging discussion". But not here. Take your own advice and go bye-bye while you can.

[mr blur]

27. I think you're in the wrong group.

Believe me, we've been trolled by professionals, you don't even come close.

[cantbeserious]

29. Ridicule - One Of The Logical Fallacies

eom

[beam me up scottie]

23. You're agnostic about an afterlife.

Like Carl Sagan, I would love to believe I am going to see my mother again, but I can't.

I am content with knowing that she is no longer suffering.


It's not possible to live without religion when its negative affects are so obvious and constant.

[wavesofeuphoria]

43. Atheists define themselves ... simply ... I do not believe in god(s).

Christians (or any religion) must be defined by others. I mean, there are freakin' books defining them!!!! Can you be a Christian and NOT believe in the bible? That bible kinda defines what it means to be Christian ....

Atheists have no defining book (and we don't want one!!!) ... but boy do the haters try to claim we do (usually its any books or words written by Dawkins, et al.) ... rather a simple contention - we do not believe in god(s).

It must be frustrating to them. Any action or claim they make counter to their book -- leaves them open to being called out on their hypocrisy. All they really have on atheists is ... hey, I see you DO believe in a god!!! You hypocrite!!! ... but that really doesn't happen much

So instead, all this other ridicule and harassment and weak-assed attempts at using "logic" is what we are left with. They want to control the meaning of words ... for everyone.

(PS sorry if this appears a tad incoherent ... I'm a bit tired.)

[onager]

66. Not incoherent at all.

Makes perfect sense, especially this:

So instead, all this other ridicule and harassment and weak-assed attempts at using "logic" is what we are left with. They want to control the meaning of words ... for everyone.

I haven't checked out the latest in That Other Group. But I'm guessing it would be depressingly familiar.

One time, a poster put up a huge Word Salad about "definitions." Went on and on, using giant polysyllabic ten-dollar words. I swear, I thought most of it was copied directly from that Instant PoMo Generator website.

When some of us asked about that, the poster implied we were just too dim to grasp his vocabulary and brilliant logic.

Well, this subject just ain't that hard. We don't believe in gods. People who need to overcomplicate that are running their own agenda. Usually to make us fit some preconceived notion of their own, IMO.

It reminds me of another website where I once wandered into a discussion of gender. Several posters were saying it was a complex topic.

A Trans person posted: "It's not really that complex. I only have one gender, just like everybody else. The one I was born with."

Atheism's not that complex either.

[Lordquinton]

67. Apparently they weren't aware of genderfluid people

Kinda like our fatheists, their belief is not consistent, and they switch back and forth. And much like Atheists you have Agendered folk who just don't feel like any gender.

[beam me up scottie]

88. No, I agree with onager.

Your point about their books defining them was right on.

One poster actually called Richard Dawkins the "atheist pope", which proves they don't know anything about anything. It was one of those moments.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. I give up.

I tried to be nice.
I tried to give the benefit of the doubt.


Fuck it.

Couple assholes over there defending, in broad daylight, shit that would get MIRT'd faster than you can say 'hold the pepperoni', if they took those positions for ANY OTHER REASON than religion. Yet they get a fucking free pass, day in, day out, attacking new visitors to the folder. Smearing shit on everything and everyone...

I'm done. I give up.

I apologize to all of you for trying to exhort everyone to be nice. I was wrong. They haven't earned such cordial treatment.

They want to stand with the bigots, and the homophobes, and the anti-abortion scumbags, fine. Fuck it. It's on.

[trotsky]

74. They're not condescending assholes.

You just perceive them that way because of a traumatic experience in your past.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. That only took you 23,116 posts.

[skepticscott]

77. I took the gloves off with all of them a long time ago

Not one of them has a shred of decency. If they aren't saying despicable things straight out, they're defending and trying to deflect criticism from people who do.

[LostOne4Ever]

85. It is just a big game to them

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]But to us, and the people we are fighting alongside with, it our lives.

They see it as [/font]"scoring points" [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]and[/font] "sides." [font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','comic sans MS',fantasy;" size=3 color=teal]They think it is about winning debates. There is no shades of grey or nuance. To them, its "You are either with us or against us." They can't see that to those that they label as "other" its not about winning debates, it is about fighting for what we believe in. Standing up for what we think is right.

This is why they are constantly trying to bring up their false equivalency between religion and atheism. Why they keep on insisting on telling us what we do or do not believe, in spite of us telling them otherwise. Why they keep trying to link things like bigotry and sexism to atheism.

It is why they, on a progressive message board, they freely compare gay marriage to marrying a bicyle, claiming opponents of interracial marriage were not racist, why they defend arranged marriages, and why they defend the pope. [font style="font-family:'Brush Script MT',''Lucida handwriting MT','forte',cursive;" size=5 color=crimson]It is all a part of their game...and they don't give a shit who they empower and who they hurt so long as they win.[/font]

I just don't want to play that game anymore.

[beam me up scottie]

89. Welcome back!

I gave up trying to find common ground a long time ago. After my return this summer I spent a lot of time going through threads that made my blood boil. Accusing us of being racists, sexists and homophobes and playing the victim when they're called on it is effective as long as no one utilizes the search function.


And anyone who thinks the pope needs to be protected from his critics doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.


So you tried to take the high road but found yourself all alone, nothing wrong with that. At least we're not hypocrites, we give as good as we get.

[Lordquinton]

93. You have tried harder than anyone else and that is commendable

I hope you stay around you have a way with words that get's them all confused.

[RussBLib]

71. about that "other" room

Do you think they are all Democrats in there? Could there be some Republicans in Democrats clothing?

[onager]

73. Probably not. Just religion trumping everything else.

Which seems to be fairly common. That Other Room sometimes makes me think of Hitchens' statement "religion poisons everything."

This is what often amazes me - with just about everybody in That Other Room, we'd agree on political issues about 90% of the time. But any criticism of religion and we suddenly become pariahs.

Just FTR, I know several atheist Republicans. None are Tea Party types. A manager at my last job was a Repub atheist from Missouri, and he got a fund-raising e-mail from Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin.

He replied something like this: I've already sent my donation for the Missouri Senate Race. To Claire McCaskill. I have 2 daughters. Don't bother me again.

[trotsky]

75. There have been some in the past, but they were PPRed.

I am confident they are Democrats, although their commitment to certain core Democratic Party positions may be questionable (reproductive rights, equality for women and LGBTQ, separation of church and state).

[beam me up scottie]

91. Unfortunately not all Democrats are progressive liberals.

Anyone who spreads lies about atheism and atheists is an illiberal religious bigot. We're supposed to give them a pass because they vote for Democrats.

Seriously, if someone posted this:

I learned over the last few years that some number of women/black/LGBT people, hopefully not representative of women/black/LGBT people generally, are really defensive and exhibit many of the same signs we see in cases of child abuse, spousal abuse, and PTSD generally.

they would be bounced for it.


But it's perfectly acceptable to use that kind of hate speech to describe outspoken atheists.

[Act_of_Reparation]

78. "Popular Agnosticism" is probably the most intellectually dishonest position I've seen so far.

These "Popular Agnostics"--those who believe both sides of the God/No God argument are equally valid and that the argument itself is therefore intractable and not worth addressing--are essentially non-believers with believer-like proclivities. They defend the powerful (the religious), attack the weak (non-believers), and think themselves all the more superior, because unlike those bigoted atheists, they're "tolerant".

Tolerant or not, their position is fucking stupid, and here's why:

They say that because we cannot know for certain whether or not God exists both sides of the argument are equally valid and equally invalid... which is ridiculous, because if philosophy has taught us anything over the past 1,500 years, it is that nothing is absolutely certain. We can't know if cold temperatures turn water to ice. We can't know if germs cause disease. We can't know if lightning is a discharge of atmospheric static electricity. Yet, for whatever reason, there is no army of doddering bobblehead "Popular Agnostics" berating first grade teachers across the country for teaching curricula intolerant of Nootaikok, Xipe Totec, or Thor.

And that's where the dishonesty comes in. I can say "I don't believe in Vampires", or shit, even, "There is no such thing as a vampire", without some self-righteous blowhard breathing his or her "tolerance of vampires" down my fucking throat. Why? The two propositions--the existence of gods and the existence of vampires--are epistemologically identical; there is no evidence for or against either of them. Yet, one proposition is deserving of "agnosticism" while the other may be casually dismissed without contention.

That they do not apply this axiom of pseudo-skepticism across the board, that is reserved--specifically--to the God/No God debate, it becomes obvious these people can't smell their own bullshit; that the lack of evidence against God isn't really what's driving the these insufferable gasbags to co-opt the word "agnosticism" and render it descriptively useless.

[skepticscott]

79. And most of them stumble all over themselves

if you ask them if they are agnostic about the existence of Santa Claus. They just can't get past that with any kind of rational justification. All they can do is mouth the usual yacht club mantra about how it's silly to compare the two, even though they are utterly incapable of explaining why.

[LostOne4Ever]

80. There is a difference

[font size=3 color=teal face=papyrus] There is some evidence for the existence of a historical St. Nick

[Act_of_Reparation]

82. They get tripped up over the thrust of the argument.

When we compare God to Santa Claus, they act like they think we are comparing the two qualitatively. But we're not; we're comparing belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. We're examining the epistemology of both propositions and, rightfully, finding them equivalent.

Whether or not this is a simple failure to understand basic philosophical principals or deliberate intellectual dishonesty is a matter of debate. Frankly, I depends on which one of them is leading the charge.

[trotsky]

81. I think there's a little bit of this in the mix too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123027218

[Act_of_Reparation]

86. Oh, without a doubt.

Our social superiors know what's best for us. Such is the Rich Man's Burden.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Are they agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Or Cthulhu?

Fictional characters with no evidence to support their existence?

That's how we see their gods, but because we're not being properly deferential when we use more contemporary figures to illustrate how illogical it is to believe in deities, they refuse to see that it's the same fucking thing.

They reject the argument because they find it insulting.

[Act_of_Reparation]

92. "They reject the argument because they find it insulting."

Kind of. They reject the argument because they find the comparisons insulting; but the argument itself doesn't really compare God to, say, Cthulhu. It compares belief in God to belief in other mythological or fictional characters. They can't seem to get this through their heads. Probably because that argument's logical conclusion--there is no difference--scares the bejeesus out of them.