Comments on: You’re not an atheist, you’re agnostic

By: RickMeasham

RickMeasham — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 04:21:24 +0000

This is about the third reply this article has received that turns from being a response to being an attack. Normally I just delete them, but now there’s a pattern I’ll let this one through. Why not just discuss my post? Why the attack at the end?

Ignoring the last 5 words, you have an interesting point to make. There are a lot more religious people who would die for what they believe than there are atheists. To suggest that all atheists would lie is probably close to the truth. But I would suggest that most religious people would do the same — no matter what they believe they’d do or what they say they’d do.

My point, however, was not about lying. It was about the actual internal belief of many so-called atheists. If you somehow took away someone’s ability to lie, it is my firm belief that most atheists would turn out to actually be agnostic.

Feel free to join the conversation, but an attack is (a) not welcome (b) a completely ineffective way to convince someone of your thesis and (c) suggests you actually have nothing substantial to contribute.

By: JC Superstar

JC Superstar — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 03:20:06 +0000

An atheist wouldn’t die for their belief. Atheism promotes focus on the present, so lying to save yourself so that you can have more life wouldn’t be against Atheism, but what an Atheist would do. Let people believe and delude themselves all they want, you’re being just as preachy as everyone else you self-righteous circumsized dick.

By: RickMeasham

RickMeasham — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:07:32 +0000

Just because some president somewhere believes he hears the word of God doesn’t make it any more relevant (as you know). All it means is that some kooky group of people, professing to be followers of Christ, ignore Christ’s teachings in favor of doing whatever they want to do with the excuse that said president told them God said it was OK.

By: Dan Dascalescu

Dan Dascalescu — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 03:02:36 +0000

> the religion of a country’s leader, unless it’s a theocracy, is totally irrelevent When the US president Invades Iraq in part because he hears the word of God, I'd say religion is at least somewhat relevant.

By: RickMeasham

RickMeasham — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:41:42 +0000

G'day Dan, Thanks for your input, and I couldn't agree more as to the reasons behind the increased virulence. Though at the same time I need to insist that it isn't only 'atheists' who are appalled by these things.

I'm a Christian who would prefer a just, honorable and honest leader over a Christian leader any day (not saying you can't be both, but the religion of a country's leader, unless it's a theocracy, is totally irrelevent).
I totally support 'gay marriage' (though would prefer we leave the word 'marriage' to religions. A marriage, from a governmental point-of-view is merely a corporation of two (or more if that's how your boat floats) persons.
I have absolutely no problem with stem cell research, though I'm not comfortable with some of the harvesting options I've read about. That said, this is a personal discomfort and I'm not going to march on parliament or write a letter to my local Rep. about it

By: Dan Dascalescu

Dan Dascalescu — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:26:11 +0000

Rick, the reason atheist have become more virulent recently is because religion keeps infringing upon their lives: 53% of Americans will just not vote for an atheist presidential candidate; the ban on gay marriage is supported mostly by religion organizations, and that's how it won even in California; stem-cell research is confronted with all sorts of obstacles from religious groups; to give just a few examples. More about why atheists are so angry at http://delicious.com/dandvd/angry

By: stewart

stewart — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 01:08:21 +0000

I found this article because I was looking for the etymology of the word platypus…..I think that says it all for this topic.

All of you, go and do something useful with your time.

Best wishes,

By: J.S.Brown

J.S.Brown — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:32:40 +0000

I stumbled across this post by accident, but found myself interested enough to read it all along with the comments. I would offer something in response to post, but nearly everything I have to say has already been said quite well by Chicken Girl. She mentioned that atheists find many dictionary offerings for “atheist” to be inaccurate. I’m an atheist, and I do.

One thing I might can add to this is a quotation from a now unknown source (I forgot). “Words are our servants, not our masters.”

It’s fine to begin dealing with the terms of language assuming the common usage, or what is in a handy dictionary. However, when we communicate with each other, we should take the time to ask and understand what one actually means. I’ve found, over and over again, that it’s better to ask someone about their word usage than to force him or her into the confines of dictionary text.

By: Bishop

Bishop — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:30:47 +0000

Point is, it is only in recent history that it *is* a “personal choice”. Up until the last couple of centuries, the religion of the monarch was the religion of the people, and going against this was punishable as heresy or other such religious crimes.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:24:58 +0000

This is exactly why I hardly ever talk about any kind of religion or belief system. I think religion(and ideas of such) need to stay personal thoughts. It might make the world a happier place, if religion was a personal choice again.