Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions thread's landfill

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I ain't afraid of being wrong (yeah I know that makes me fearless,

)

Only a fool has no fear.Not being afraid of being wrong is not the same as being too lazy learn by oneself and depending on others. If you truly want to learn,some effort is required.

[houseofcantor]

Only a fool has no fear.Not being afraid of being wrong is not the same as being too lazy learn by oneself and depending on others. If you truly want to learn,some effort is required.

Taking to its illogical extreme, you propose solipsism. Of course, I know the whole point of your comment was insult. I've been an atheist for a bit.

[Epimethean]

Are you suggesting that only atheists hand out insults/

[houseofcantor]

Are you suggesting that only atheists hand out insults/

Hell, no. It seems to be a "tribal identity" kinda thing. The theists are all artificially inoffensive to each other whereas we atheists keep it real and if we can toss an insult or two into the mix, all the better. I take it as a sign of integrity, moral self-confidence, intelligence; atheism is just better all the way around.

If I invest my identity in some stupid shit and get butthurt because of the response of the community, that just means it is time to take my head out of my ass. The things I have invested identity in, I don't need to force on another, and I simply cannot be insulted over. Like that dang Gwynnies.

[amkerman]

I'm suggesting that the frequency of self-proclaimed atheists handing out insults is on par with the frequency of self-proclaimed theists who do the same, which is about the same as the frequency to be expected in all of western culture as a whole.

[Epimethean]

What about the non-self-proclaimed atheists?

[houseofcantor]

Always looking for a moral edge, them theists. Not in my experience, amkerman; which is mostly Christian. With Christianity, the unseen presence of Holy Spirit "where two or more are gathered" breeds this artifice of inoffensiveness which often leads to a persecution complex.

Failure to understand basic mathematical principles, such as "taking offense" being the independent variable. What causes offense is exactly as I have described, an investment of identity in a position, ideal, philosophy; what initiates the emotional context of offense in the individual is morality. Funny that, me and zero-state morality. An atheist with absolute, unoffendable morality.

Where's your god now?

[amkerman]

Interesting. Purely speculating, but I would guess that those among us who do not hold convictions about spiritual beliefs one way or the other are less likely to hold convictions about other topics. This assumption leads me to believe there is likely an inverse correlation between those who do not ascribe to any label regarding their belief or lack thereof in God and the amout of insults they hand out. Now, there are likely many atheists and theists who do not proclaim their position openly but nevertheless hold strong personal convitions about the subject who would weaken that correlation. That could be controlled for in an experiment however.

---

Hoc. Theists insult eachother with at an alarming rate. Christians v Muslims v Jews. And that's just about who's going to burn. Theists also insult eachother regarding just about every other topic under the sun. You know theists think and have opinions about other things than God probably (best guess) 99% of the time.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Taking to its illogical extreme, you propose solipsism

Bollocks.

I meant what I said. My comment was simply some gentle piss-taking,about self reliance.

Of course, I know the whole point of your comment was insult.

Insulting? ME? Did I call you a cunt? No, I fucking well did not,so get over yourself.

---

I'm suggesting that the frequency of self-proclaimed atheists---

Not sure what you mean by that,comes across as you meant it as a pejorative (that's grown-up for for 'insulting')

Why not just say 'atheists'?


OF course in reality most atheists are in no way superior to most theists.

That's not how it seems to some of us here. I'm pretty sure that's because of the overwhelmingly poor standard of theist apologists who insist on infesting our site.

[dtango]

Tango, the only myth here, is that this is a scientific myth.

Dear Rhythm,
To the scientific myth you added Wiki’s fairy tale!
A one-sided scientific theory is much worse than religious dogmas.

From ~1.2 million years ago to less than 100,000 years ago, the ancestors of all people alive were from Africans which had dark skin.
[…]
This theory is supported by a study into the SLC24A5 gene which found that the allelle associated with light skin in Europe may have originated as recently as 6,000–10,000 years ago which is in line with the earliest evidence of farming.

That means that by approximately 6000 BCE the Vikings were black people with thick lips and flat wide noses!!

The issue here, Gentlemen, is race. The colour of the skin has to do with race! The latitude where the members of a race live is of lesser importance. Whites would be darker in the equator and lighter in higher latitudes and so will all races but pure uncontaminated members of the black race.

According to your preferred theory the Neanderthals of Europe were as white as the Scandinavians are, and the Neanderthals of the Middle East should have had the Palestinians' skin colour.

What about Asians? When did the black people who migrated into China obtain white skin? How about 700,000 (seven hundred) years ago?

---

The Homo erectus known familiarly as Peking Man holds an important place in palaeoanthropology and in the public imagination, not only as one of the earliest hominin discoveries but also because of where it was found. The Peking Man fossils were found during the 1930s in the classic locality of Longgushan ('dragon-bone hill') near the village of Zhoukoudian. The age of the deposits has since been hotly debated, but the issue has now been resolved using a recently developed technique that dates the cave sediments by measuring the burial of cosmogenic aluminium-26 and beryllium-10. Their age computes to about 770,000 years old — nearly 300,000 years earlier than usually thought. This implies that hominids were there during some rather chilly periods and raises doubts over some accepted ideas about the migration of early hominids northwards only in clement, interglacial times.
AUTHORS: Making the paper: Guanjun Shen & Darryl Granger

---

In the Zhoukoudian cave of China people lived from about 700,000 ago to 30,000 years ago.

Dear Epimethean, it was you who mentioned first the multiregional continuity theory but you keep avoiding to answer the question as to whether human races were already present at the stage of Homo erectus-ergaster.
Most probably there were white Homo erectus and black Homo erectus and any skin colour Homo erectus and the scientists keep writing papers because to produce the right paper lots of wrong ones have to appear first.

A black-skinned person absorbs too much radiation. You do not need tests verifying the fact. Try wear a black shirt in the Persian Gulf in summer time and you will know.

Only a fool has no fear.Not being afraid of being wrong is not the same as being too lazy learn by oneself and depending on others. If you truly want to learn,some effort is required.

Oh!! Why then don’t you apply your advice to yourself in order to stop being agnostic?