 AtlLiberal says: This is a lucid explanation of what an atheist is and what an atheist is not. It's a good summation and answers some of the basic questions that are often brought up in regards to atheism. Link to the original (it's not too long) for a good introduction. Thank you. It's a perfect explanation. Popped for accuracy, brevity, and authority. Amen!  It is no active affirmation that a god(s) does not exist.I like that and I can live with that, as long as you don't tell me (or anyone else) that God doesn't exist. But unfortunately, atheist makes the same mistakes - in being self-righteous - as any other religious person. Nothing personal to you AtlLiberal. Just making an argument. I like that and I can live with that, as long as you don't tell me (or anyone else) that God doesn't exist.We still have free speech. You may not care for it but it exists. Personally, I couldn't care less what you or anyone else believes as long as they don't use the govt to force their beliefs on others. And is your faith so shaky that my expressing my views is forbidden? So, should blaspheme be agains the law? Should heresy be against the law? And by what authority do you order me or anyone else from not expressing my personal views to, as you phrase it, anyone else? Talk about arrogance. Wow, that is quite a trip. Theism - belief in God A-Theism - belief there is no God A-theism IS NOT the absence of belief. A-theism IS dis-belief. (in the existence of God) What is described in this clip is Agnosticism, which is an absence of knowledge or professed unknowability about the existence or nonexistence of God. You might want to consult a dictionary, philosophy book, theology book instead of some dude that clearly does not know the English language. Atheism IS a truth claim. If you do not feel comfortable making a truth claim, then you are agnostic. Simple! We still have free speech. You may not care for it but it exists. --AtlLiberalI think my argument was clear above, I'm against any kind of self-righteousness. Propagating belief or no-belief on others is not free speech. Propagating belief or no-belief on others is not free speech.It is, in fact, the definition of free speech. I would defend Hitchens' or Dawkins' right just as much as I would defend my own. Without the propogating, free speech has no purpose or effect. The drawback is that there are those that mislead and propagandize. I would suggest this clip is propaganda because it is entirely false and has the purpose of misleading or changing the definition of a word to gain more acceptance. It is free speech that will combat the the idiocy of those that fall for these tactics. I would suggest this clip is propaganda because it is entirely falseAtheism is lack of belief. If proof was offered that god or gods existed I would no longer be atheist. At present, I do not have a belief in a god or gods. Which is the definition of atheism. It seems pretty clear to me. Propagating belief or no-belief on others is not free speech.Oh really? It would be interesting what you view as free speech. Is is only speech that you agree with? Atheism IS a truth claim.Ah, not really. Atheism is holding no belief. If I claimed that there ... I suppose you would lack belief in this teapot.You are correct. I am a-teapotist. I submit (make a truth claim) there is no teapot. You shoud read a book. The internet is not serving you well. This clip and your comments are preposterous. Oh really? It would be interesting what you view as free speech. Is is only speech that you agree with? --AtlLiberal It is, in fact, the definition of free speech. I would defend Hitchens' or Dawkins' right just as much as I would defend my own. --willhelmThanks for giving me the opportunity to refine my own thoughts. I guess I'm in agreement above. My only contention is that there's too much proselytizing going on in this world, atheists are no exception in this regard. All I'm saying is that the belief in God or no belief in God "should" hold equal value, so I'm all for common decency in respecting each other's personal beliefs. I'm all for an imaginary law which strictly prohibits proselytizing. I'm all for an imaginary law which strictly prohibits proselytizing.Finally, a lib admits opposition to free speech. I respect your honesty, Arifsali. Well, it is common sense, people create imbalance and trouble by taking advantage of this aspect of free speech. Free speech comes with responsibility. And I know what you may be thinking, my above proposed law wouldn't really work and is not practical of course. Willhelm, life is too short to spend it arguing with someone who immediately resorts to personal attacks. If that's the best you can offer I'll just say goodbye... Well, it is common sense, people create imbalance and trouble by taking advantage of this aspect of free speech.I agree with you, but the only alternative is no free speech. It is more important for people to learn about truth, logic, and understanding how to not be duped ( by both sides) and not allow, for example, words to be redefined (like this clip) in order to gain an edge in appealing to ignorance. I have no issue with the fact Alt Lib is an atheist. My issue is that he wants to redefine the word to feel better or gain more broad acceptance. This does not increase free speech, this limits free speech. Because where people cannot discern the meanings of words and a... altlib, I'm sorry you feel that way. I am blunt, I admit. I really don't want to do this, because you never know what kind of shit-storm willhelm will bring, but I feel I must. Willhelm, if I may, point out where atllib feels you are attacking. You might want to consult a dictionary, philosophy book, theology book instead of some dude that clearly does not know the English language. You shoud read a book. The internet is not serving you well. This clip and your comments are preposterous.To suggest that you are the only smart one here and that everyone not named willhelm is a complete idiot, can come across as attacking. You obviously love to debate and are very good at it. We might be able to continue debates with y... Laceym, You have not been around long enough to know, but I have taken much harsher criticism and "personal attacks". It is fair to interpret my comments as "personal attacks". However, they are truthful and if they sting a little that is just part of being honest about my thoughts. It is interesting how on a thread where we discuss free speech, you engage in a feel-good appeal to a politically correct tone. There are cases where my comments are warranted. This is one of them. To be so thick as to dismiss the definition of atheism for some random editorial on the internet and to continue to defend it is an affront to intellect, honesty, and fair discussion. Especially considering some of the following comments. That said, comments like yours below do not bother me one bit. I just notice how libs never follow up their expressions with facts, examples, or evidence about the issue at hand. You will notice my expressions in a vast majority of cases, if not always, do. I really don't want to do this, because you never know what kind of shit-storm willhelm will bring, but I feel I must. Discussion Pop. Further, I am in agreement with willhelm. Points taken willhelm. In this case I do deserve to be called thick. I do not think you are thick, laceym. Hey willhelm guess what i've sudied philosophy and so far your coming from a baised veiw that comes from the dogmatic critique if you don't know what that is sorry I can't explain it in so few words but At lib is basically right about what you are saying you are deining atheism from a religious perspective which goes toward the definition of an absolute truth and making a claim not everyone states that they hold the truth or make a claim but simply state that what you are saying may not be the truth. Nice sentence. Absurd. I read your profile dna last mark. I won't expect too much. Well a good resource (although its a wiki so...) its this one. You know, it is not that difficult to actually consult a philosophy book or a theology book. Are you offering to buy me one? That be swell. I sold most of mine except for Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of Art. willhelm has made his argument more than once in various clips and it always comes down to him arguing his own idea of how the word 'atheism' should be translated. If an atheist can be shown to be in an impossible position (making the truth claim that there is no god) then he can dismiss any atheistic claims because proof cannot be shown either way on the existance of god. Instead he offers the term "agnostic" to those that argue atheism because in this way he forces them to accept and promote that there is a god. It adds much to an argument of god and your beliefs if your opponents are forced to admit that while they may not know details, they accept that there is some sort of god. They do... In the above statement my usage of 'god' was meant more in the line of 'a god' or 'any god', not in any sense of any specific god. This is why willhelm NEEDS people to accept his definition of atheism - without it he is what he accuses everyone else of doing.I don't NEED anyone to accept anything. I just point out the fallacies and inconsistencies of the redefinitions to those less astute or blatantly ignorant. So the definition of ignorance is anyone who disagrees with you. Ahh now all is clear. Listen you seem like a good argumenter but already Oortcloud has you pinned down. I well, there's no accounting for clear thinking. Thank you. |
View the Top Clips from June 5, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
