RE: A View on Atheist
June 3, 2011 at 5:30 pm
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2011 at 5:31 pm by Ace Otana.)
(June 3, 2011 at 5:21 pm)Eternity Wrote: So basically you defining a agnostic and a atheist? I'm trying to find the point here if there is one. If it's just a observation then I can't disagree though I do find it meaningless as they believe pretty much the same. The notion of difference shouldn't be showed.
He's trying to redefine atheism. Failed he has.
He thinks that for someone to lack belief in a god or gods, it requires faith?
Simply put, an atheist is one who does not believe in a god, and putting agnostic in front of that is simply stating that not only do you lack belief in god but admit that god's existence is unknown/unknowable. He thinks this requires faith.
Yet it doesn't take faith to lack belief in anything else, this is where he engages special pleading and has even jumped to argument ad populum, which is a fallacious argument.
I think that about covers it.
Anyone want to add to this?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
