Jump to content

Neil is not a baptist!


Rod in Toronto
 Share

Recommended Posts

can u guys plz stop with the mean Neil threads?? They are anyoying and I don't like them.

 

giphy.gif

 

That is a cute little kitty kat!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'd say there's a big step from agnostic to atheist.

 

as NP says...

http://img09.deviantart.net/0248/i/2013/295/d/8/that_s_all_folks__by_surrimugge-d6rfav1.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love Doug Stanhope. He says it like he means it, no guessing. Many agnostics really are 100% atheists. But, they don't want to say it publicly, especially if they are a celebrity. Well, I am not a celebrity, so I just say it... only I add one little qualifier to the end... I am the world's number one atheist "and then some." I'll bet Neil would take up that number two spot if you asked him privately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of people think 'atheist' means that they are saying they aren't open to being proven wrong.

 

Obviously anyone who respects the scientific method is open to being wrong.

 

This is what 'Russell's Teapot' is all about.

 

An atheist is someone who requires some measure of proof beyond what others feel to be true. I have never had anyone successfully translate their 'deeply held faith' into anything concrete enough to qualify as proof.

 

An agnostic is someone who either doesn't care (and therefore has not assessed any of the proffered 'proofs') or someone who has accepted some of the proffered proofs as enough to leave them unsure. Many of the proofs accepted by agnostics offered up center around the unlikelihood of the vast complexity of life that exists to occur naturally.

 

I'm an atheist, but I think it is quite possible for a person who requires proof to be agnostic because the scope of life on this planet really is staggering. So Neil could be an agnostic and still believe the things he says. I doubt he's worried about his image if he says atheist. He survived Ayn Rand. :)

 

I will say that being an atheist does not mean I look down on the religious. Who am I to question their sincerity?

Just as the burden of proof falls on another to convince me there is a God, the burden of proof falls on me to convince them that there isn't. If they say they 'saw' God, I can doubt that (I do). But I can't prove I'm right and going around calling people delusional will never help make atheism broadly accepted. You can't kick people into agreeing with you, you can only kick them into lying about it, or kicking you back.

 

Edit: the definitions I used are based on how I see the terms used, not about strict text book definitions. Some people see agnostic as 'doubt' and atheist as 'certain' in simple terms. This is another reason of course why people don't say atheist, they don't want to say they know something as infallible fact because it is taken as a push against others. So they say agnostic to mean the same thing but without the challenging affect.

Edited by Mosher
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...