I'm an agnostic who doesn't usually love "anti-religion humor," but I'm reminded that the reply to the above quote pointing out that at least those things are KNOWN to be real was quite clever and amusing.
The arrogant atheist is always the most annoying, unless I’m arguing against a religious person. Then it’s fine
I'm an agnostic who doesn't usually love "anti-religion humor," but I'm reminded that the reply to the above quote pointing out that at least those things are KNOWN to be real was quite clever and amusing.
The arrogant atheist is always the most annoying, unless I’m arguing against a religious person. Then it’s fine
Perhaps I should study the definitions, but shouldn't any modest atheist probably back down to (merely) agnostic?
The arrogant atheist is always the most annoying, unless I’m arguing against a religious person. Then it’s fine
Perhaps I should study the definitions, but shouldn't any modest atheist probably back down to (merely) agnostic?
It’s a more defensible position for sure, but part of me is definitely atheistic. It makes the most sense to me that there’s nothing after this. I’m working on convincing myself to be Christian though. Just seems like a happier life if you genuinely believe you’ll go to heaven after.
I'm an agnostic who doesn't usually love "anti-religion humor," but I'm reminded that the reply to the above quote pointing out that at least those things are KNOWN to be real was quite clever and amusing.
Your post doesn't mean anything when everything you post is encapsulated in a far-left dogma.
I'm an agnostic who doesn't usually love "anti-religion humor," but I'm reminded that the reply to the above quote pointing out that at least those things are KNOWN to be real was quite clever and amusing.
Your post doesn't mean anything when everything you post is encapsulated in a far-left dogma.
My initial response was “gibberish.”
But that’s actually too kind.
Imagine a one question test at your local community college:
Q: Provide one example of “far left dogma.”
Sally’s A: When people say that DJT shouldn’t be president or the leader of a major party.
Grade: Can you guess? Go ahead, give it a try. Rhymes with Jeff.
runnerboy70 wrote: Climate is a Religion with liberals they worship the earth, moon stars....very primitive...
I'm an agnostic who doesn't usually love "anti-religion humor," but I'm reminded that the reply to the above quote pointing out that at least those things are KNOWN to be real was quite clever and amusing.
The arrogant atheist is always the most annoying, unless I’m arguing against a religious person. Then it’s fine
Perhaps I should study the definitions, but shouldn't any modest atheist probably back down to (merely) agnostic?
Nah. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any god(s); a theist believes in one or more of them. By contrast, an agnostic thinks that the existence or nonexistence of a "deity" cannot be known/proved; a small-g "gnostic" thinks that existence (or non-) can be known.
So one thing is about believing, while another is about "knowability." And this yields four possibilities:
Perhaps I should study the definitions, but shouldn't any modest atheist probably back down to (merely) agnostic?
Nah. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any god(s); a theist believes in one or more of them. By contrast, an agnostic thinks that the existence or nonexistence of a "deity" cannot be known/proved; a small-g "gnostic" thinks that existence (or non-) can be known.
So one thing is about believing, while another is about "knowability." And this yields four possibilities:
The agnostic atheist, who doesn't believe in any supernatural being but doesn't think the question can be settled; the "gnostic" atheist, who is also a nonbeliever but thinks the nonexistence of god(s) can be proved; the gnostic theist, who not only believes in one or more deities but thinks its/their existence can be proved; and the agnostic theist, who believes but says s/he cannot prove the existence of the god(s) that s/he believes in.
I think it's worth pointing out that quite a few god-believers are agnostic, some proudly so: "No, I can never be certain my God exists, I can never prove it--yet I believe!"
I would consider myself a relatively modest atheist: I don't think people get to choose their beliefs or nonbeliefs (in any reasonable sense of the word "choose"), so I don't try to change them. And I am indeed an agnostic atheist about most "deities": I don't believe in any of them, but because they're generally ill defined I can't definitely say they don't exist.
By contrast (again), the Abrahamic "G-d" of the Jews/Christians/Muslims--as it is usually described by its believers--is pretty well defined. And since they accord it contradictory properties, and thus it cannot exist, I'm a gnostic atheist about that one.
Nah. An atheist is a person who doesn't believe in any god(s); a theist believes in one or more of them. By contrast, an agnostic thinks that the existence or nonexistence of a "deity" cannot be known/proved; a small-g "gnostic" thinks that existence (or non-) can be known.
So one thing is about believing, while another is about "knowability." And this yields four possibilities:
The agnostic atheist, who doesn't believe in any supernatural being but doesn't think the question can be settled; the "gnostic" atheist, who is also a nonbeliever but thinks the nonexistence of god(s) can be proved; the gnostic theist, who not only believes in one or more deities but thinks its/their existence can be proved; and the agnostic theist, who believes but says s/he cannot prove the existence of the god(s) that s/he believes in.
I think it's worth pointing out that quite a few god-believers are agnostic, some proudly so: "No, I can never be certain my God exists, I can never prove it--yet I believe!"
I would consider myself a relatively modest atheist: I don't think people get to choose their beliefs or nonbeliefs (in any reasonable sense of the word "choose"), so I don't try to change them. And I am indeed an agnostic atheist about most "deities": I don't believe in any of them, but because they're generally ill defined I can't definitely say they don't exist.
By contrast (again), the Abrahamic "G-d" of the Jews/Christians/Muslims--as it is usually described by its believers--is pretty well defined. And since they accord it contradictory properties, and thus it cannot exist, I'm a gnostic atheist about that one.
Agnostic theist - OK.
Gnostic theist - And the proof is...?
Gnostic atheist - And the proof is...?
Agnostic atheist - Seems just like regular ole' agnostic. I mean, obviously, you wouldn't believe in something that doesn't exist. And if it were to turn out that a (freakin') god(s) exist, whether or not you happen to "believe in it" seems to suddenly becomes pretty damn irrelevant. At best. At worst, if some of our religions are anywhere near the mark, you're REALLY f******.
A Jan. 6 rioter who allegedly used an "electroshock weapon" to assault Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone and then bragged about the attack to friends is expected to plead guilty to related charges on Tuesday.
Daniel Rodriguez at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a video presented as evidence. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia"Omg I did so much f---ing s--- rn and got away tell you later," Daniel "D.J." Rodriguez, of Fontana, California, wrote in a group chat with other rioters, according to an indictment filed in federal court in Washington. "Tazzzzed the f--- out of the blue."
Trump is a genius. He gets in the heads of people of both sides. He just gets more famous and richer.
With all due respect, using a pop phrase like "gets in the head of" to sum up or analyze important things in this world, now or in the past, isn't terribly persuasive or useful.
Moreover, it arguably gives a certain "credit" to bad people who are influential, powerful, etc. And that's distasteful.
To the specifics, once you're the president of the U.S., it's hard to really get any "more famous." What you CAN do is become more INfamous. Trump has certainly "accomplished" that. Regarding richer, we've learned that Trump is capable of making a buck. We've also learned that he's even better at spending much more than he made. Not impressed.
We can agree that Trump has "maintained" his fame more than other ex-presidents....because he's almost incomprehensibly insecure and needs to be the center of attention. Yay for him.
“I was there yesterday . . . . . . at the Capitol building. . . . . I was liiiiin that . . . . like on the front line . . . . . . it was amazing.” Jan. 6 defendant Melanie Lanham, an organizer, de-clutterer and event planner, has been sentenced to 18 months of probation.
A New York appellate court has upheld a $110,000 contempt order against former President Donald Trump for flouting discovery orders in the state attorney general’s fraud investigation.
This evening, federal prosecutors invoked the crime-fraud exception when seeking to compel Trump's lawyer's testimony. This exception applies to attorney-client communications that were made to facilitate criminal activity. In other words, the DOJ believes Trump used his attorney to commit a crime.
A man identified in 2017 viral photos as one of the white supremacists and alt-right protesters at the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally died on Jan. 30, the same day he was set to go to trial in Arizona District Court in Tucson for allegedly smuggling fentanyl across the border south of Ajo.
“I was there yesterday . . . . . . at the Capitol building. . . . . I was liiiiin that . . . . like on the front line . . . . . . it was amazing.” Jan. 6 defendant Melanie Lanham, an organizer, de-clutterer and event planner, has been sentenced to 18 months of probation.
By violent insurrectionists, you are referring to a stay-at-home mother of three that needed to pee that didn't hurt anyone. Is this what keeps you up at night? She was basically a non-violent protestor. Just hope the justice system is treating those who participated in the BLM riots to the same standard.