(January 9, 2016 at 12:02 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 11:57 pm)MTL Wrote: badass, isn't he?

It perfectly conveys my approach to the debate.

Well, I don't quite identify with the predator position - I'd just like to get people to re-think bad ideas, and when I can help those who are questioning those which they've been handed. But it's still a badass pic.

I know those things really exist, but that isn't really a photo...is it? If an artist did that, I'd love to know where I could see more from him.

Once again, I do not prey on them.

But if they see fit to prey on me, then they will get more than they bargained for, that's all.

I also don't react with vitriol to any Theist that just wants to have a discussion;
it's only those with an agenda that I will drop the gloves, for.

anyway.

No, that pic was an illustration;

here's a larger version...



I noticed a web address in the corner:

http://www.akinvong.com/

(I visited the website, and on the side navigation bar, if you click on "3D illustration",

this image has a thumbnail there).

Here's a photo of the actual fish...instead of a mere stylized illlustration:




If you like that, then here's some other illustrations of the Angler Fish;

this one from "Finding Nemo" I think:



and another:



and someone went so far as to build kind of a Steampunk sculpture of one:



full link here




ok I think I've flogged the Angler Fish thing to death, now.

(January 9, 2016 at 12:21 am)MTL Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 12:02 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Well, I don't quite identify with the predator position - I'd just like to get people to re-think bad ideas, and when I can help those who are questioning those which they've been handed. But it's still a badass pic.

I know those things really exist, but that isn't really a photo...is it? If an artist did that, I'd love to know where I could see more from him.

Once again, I do not prey on them.

But if they see fit to prey on me, then they will get more than they bargained for, that's all.

I also don't react with vitriol to any Theist that just wants to have a discussion;
it's only those with an agenda that I will drop the gloves, for.

anyway.

larger version of that pic....



I see a web address in the corner:

http://www.akinvong.com/

I visited the website, and on the side navigation bar, if you click on "3D illustration",

this image has a thumbnail there.

Oh hell, if I am seen to be that way (vitriol for those who just want to have a discussion), that was hardly my intent! I'm aware that I have at times overreacted with some, because the issue touches a nerve and I regret that dearly. It's true that when I was here about a month ago, despite my motivations being the same, I was reacting to the airing of ideas which disturbed me and seeing less the person behind them, which is easy to do when you can only see what they post. I'd like to think I've mellowed some since I've been here. People here are generally just too nice, and that's really unusual, not what I've been used to in other blog or forum cultures. There's still a place for vitriol with those who are going to be arrogant about their ideas and waste your time when you try and explain your position as if you had said something entirely different, not for reasonable misunderstanding but because they were too lazy to read more than two words or they are being devious - this I cannot tolerate, and I doubt that one should.

Anyway, thanks for the url.

(January 9, 2016 at 12:45 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 12:21 am)MTL Wrote: Once again, I do not prey on them.

But if they see fit to prey on me, then they will get more than they bargained for, that's all.

I also don't react with vitriol to any Theist that just wants to have a discussion;
it's only those with an agenda that I will drop the gloves, for.

anyway.

larger version of that pic....



I see a web address in the corner:

http://www.akinvong.com/

I visited the website, and on the side navigation bar, if you click on "3D illustration",

this image has a thumbnail there.

Oh hell, if I am seen to be that way (vitriol for those who just want to have a discussion), that was hardly my intent! I'm aware that I have at times overreacted with some, because the issue touches a nerve and I regret that dearly. It's true that when I was here about a month ago, despite my motivations being the same, I was reacting to the airing of ideas which disturbed me and seeing less the person behind them, which is easy to do when you can only see what they post. I'd like to think I've mellowed some since I've been here. There's still a place for vitriol with those who are going to be arrogant about their ideas and waste your time when you try and explain your position as if you had said nothing, that I cannot tolerate, and I doubt that one should.

Anyway, thanks for the url.

you keep misunderstanding me!  I wasn't accusing you of being vitriolic.  I was simply saying that I am not vitriolic, either, to any Theist that just wants to discuss the issue.  It's only those with an agenda that I take umbrage with.

(January 9, 2016 at 12:50 am)MTL Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 12:45 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: Oh hell, if I am seen to be that way (vitriol for those who just want to have a discussion), that was hardly my intent! I'm aware that I have at times overreacted with some, because the issue touches a nerve and I regret that dearly. It's true that when I was here about a month ago, despite my motivations being the same, I was reacting to the airing of ideas which disturbed me and seeing less the person behind them, which is easy to do when you can only see what they post. I'd like to think I've mellowed some since I've been here. There's still a place for vitriol with those who are going to be arrogant about their ideas and waste your time when you try and explain your position as if you had said nothing, that I cannot tolerate, and I doubt that one should.

Anyway, thanks for the url.

you keep misunderstanding me!  I wasn't accusing you of being vitriolic.  I was simply saying that I am not vitriolic, either, to any Theist that just wants to discuss the issue.  It's only those with an agenda that I take umbrage with.

Ok, you see I do tend to read into things people say, sorry  The truth is that I'm guilty of that, got that guilty mind thing going

In theory, labels aren't important except as a shorthand.

In practice, I think the "atheist" label is very important. There is a serious problem with atheists, whether they call themselves that or not, being socially ostracised or worse. Since the internet makes the world so much smaller, every "out" atheist makes it that little bit easier for the next one to come out, in my opinion. Each professed atheist acting like a normal person and not murdering people all the time (although of course, there are bad atheists too) goes towards dispelling some of the ridiculous myths about atheism. And it invites questions, as shown by this wonderful forum.

If instead atheists all used very different words to describe themselves, any kind of unity in the concept is lost. I liken it to when gays started to come out. If instead of announcing, "I am gay" each person said something very different and personal, it wouldn't have made it any easier to "come out gay".

This is my opinion, anyway. Of course, atheism is not a club. I'm not suggesting that. It's nothing, basically. But it's an important nothing, with the world how it is. So I'm proud to call myself an atheist and to show those whose minds have been poisoned that I am not the devil. And to show other atheists that it's OK to be one.

(January 9, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: In theory, labels aren't important except as a shorthand.

In practice, I think the "atheist" label is very important. There is a serious problem with atheists, whether they call themselves that or not, being socially ostracised or worse. Since the internet makes the world so much smaller, every "out" atheist makes it that little bit easier for the next one to come out, in my opinion. Each professed atheist acting like a normal person and not murdering people all the time (although of course, there are bad atheists too) goes towards dispelling some of the ridiculous myths about atheism. And it invites questions, as shown by this wonderful forum.

If instead atheists all used very different words to describe themselves, any kind of unity in the concept is lost. I liken it to when gays started to come out. If instead of announcing, "I am gay" each person said something very different and personal, it wouldn't have made it any easier to "come out gay".

This is my opinion, anyway. Of course, atheism is not a club. I'm not suggesting that. It's nothing, basically. But it's an important nothing, with the world how it is. So I'm proud to call myself an atheist and to show those whose minds have been poisoned that I am not the devil. And to show other atheists that it's OK to be one.

Since my deconversion, I have proudly gone with the label "atheist". I believe some people in other groups, such as "skeptic" or "freethinker", are essentially atheist, but the different labels (which I know are not precisely synonymous) provide what are perceived to be more gentle connotations when you fear "The "Big A". Then there is Daniel Dennet's idea "Brights", which never caught on - this was intended as an alternate label for actual atheists, and fortunately this never seemed to catch on. Much as I respect and admire Dennet, I can't imagine a more snooty sounding, snob-appeal inspired idea than this, plus it would inevitably become associated with ideology. What I like about "atheist" is that it describes exactly what's in the tin, no more and no less.

(January 9, 2016 at 1:00 am)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 12:50 am)MTL Wrote: you keep misunderstanding me!  I wasn't accusing you of being vitriolic.  I was simply saying that I am not vitriolic, either, to any Theist that just wants to discuss the issue.  It's only those with an agenda that I take umbrage with.

Ok, you see I do tend to read into things people say, sorry  The truth is that I'm guilty of that, got that guilty mind thing going

well, I'm the same way, so I understand.

(January 9, 2016 at 4:39 am)robvalue Wrote: In theory, labels aren't important except as a shorthand.

In practice, I think the "atheist" label is very important. There is a serious problem with atheists, whether they call themselves that or not, being socially ostracised or worse. Since the internet makes the world so much smaller, every "out" atheist makes it that little bit easier for the next one to come out, in my opinion. Each professed atheist acting like a normal person and not murdering people all the time (although of course, there are bad atheists too) goes towards dispelling some of the ridiculous myths about atheism. And it invites questions, as shown by this wonderful forum.

If instead atheists all used very different words to describe themselves, any kind of unity in the concept is lost. I liken it to when gays started to come out. If instead of announcing, "I am gay" each person said something very different and personal, it wouldn't have made it any easier to "come out gay".

This is my opinion, anyway. Of course, atheism is not a club. I'm not suggesting that. It's nothing, basically. But it's an important nothing, with the world how it is. So I'm proud to call myself an atheist and to show those whose minds have been poisoned that I am not the devil. And to show other atheists that it's OK to be one.

Interesting perspective and a good point.

However, the term "Agnostic" is also misunderstood and needs defending;

Too many people (including many Atheists) simply think of Agnosticism as being "Atheism Lite"
and that's not necessarily it, at all (although for some individuals, that may be their personal case).

Because I think it is so important to demonstrate the option of Deism to Theists, most of whom are oblivious to the term and the concept, I tenaciously refer to myself as Agnostic, since it is not their Faith I really take issue with, so much as their dogma or religion

Sadly people misunderstand the term "Atheism" and assume it means:

A.  Absolutely rejecting any possibility of the existence of a God
B.  Insisting that others reject that possibility as well

I know that the term "Atheism" does not necessarily mean either of those things,
and I agree with what you've said about Atheism, like the LGBT community,
being "out and proud" to normalize the term and also defuse the antagonism that unfortunately so often follows it.

Actually, it is unfortunate,
but I fear that "Atheism" has it in common with "Feminism"
that some individuals or groups have caused the term to be take on negative connotations that it should not have.

Thank you

Sure, I'm certainly not going to tell anyone else what they should call themselves.

Definitions vary a lot, but under the ones I use, being agnostic and being atheist/theist are two different questions. The first is knowledge, the second is belief. So I would categorise people in 4 ways, agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist. But I fully appreciate some people don't like to include the atheist part, because it sadly has indeed become stigmatised. And it's also popular to hold "agnostic" as a position on its own, just using a different definition. As long as we all understand each other, everything is fine

Going with that, could we all be agnostic, when all is said and done?