Bazdavies79

Oh ok. No longer interested.

Naomi Wolf's vagina took a pounding?

My mates dad has been driving convoys of old vans to be used as ambulances to Palestine for years, he's well travelled in Muslim countries and paints a very different picture to the one you do, but I accept I don't have first hand experience. I think millions of Muslims just want to live peaceful and happy lives, and although events in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan have led many to conclude that western governments have got it in for them - most don't want any more violence. When we realise that circumstances drive ideas, then we might begin to solve many of the problems. But if you start and end with the point of view 'their religion is nutty', then you're just part of the problem, not the solution.

The majority of people who want to live in peace generally have nothing to do with any of the violence we see. Well they are totally without value if you can't put them into any kind of context.

Words being misinterpreted is a bit of a bugbear with me at the moment.

...................Guzan.................. Lowton...Vlaar.....Clark...Bennett ...............El Ahmadi................. ....Holman...Ireland...Bannan..... ...........Bent.........Gabby...........

What? You'll have to explain that one. I'd like to know who was asked, what the question was.

The country is going through a revolution, there is a power struggle and some are using religion for their own aims. Which is a shame as most people there probably just want to live peaceful happy lives.

.......................Guzan........................ Lowton......Vlaar........Baker.......Bennett .....................El Ahmadi....................... .........Holman...Ireland....Bannan......... ................Bent.........Gabby................

No, not everybody has to be agnostic. But yes, I think lots of people are confused to its actual meaning.

He needs to play better that he did at Newcastle.

But you must remember words meanings change through common usage though. How many of you are feeling gay right now? Many words meanings are not set in stone, and are open to interpretation. Huxley, the guy who first coined the term agnostic was considered and anti theist, but always denied he was an atheist, preferring, like Darwin to call himself simply, yeah you guessed it agnostic. Arguing over definitions is pointless in this instance.

Well, this suggestion that people, (or all people if I infer the posters comment accurately) are agnostic because they're atheists in denial is purely based on anecdotal evidence, as far as I can tell. No real evidence has been put forward to support it. Yet within this apparent vacuum of evidence a rather forthright view has arisen, agnostics are weak cowards.

OK I will phrase it a different way. The dialogue between them seems to be going around in cricles, a lot of repetition, neither appears to be backing down and I almost think they should just agree to disagree. Quite right, but moving the debate on... The main point, and what I can't understand, is why anybody would think someone with a differing view to them was cowardly, weak or to repeat the exact term, a 'pussy'?

Well, look back over my posts and you can see what I believe and put whatever label you like on it. I'm not concerned with these labels, because they're to wishy-washy. This is an argument I've allowed myself to be railroaded into. The main point, and what I can't understand, is why anybody would think someone with a differing view to them was cowardly, weak - a 'pussy'. That's not healthy to think like that, and that attitude goes through this whole 70 odd pages.

What am I wrong about, calling people derogatory names? Is that acceptable? Or are we still in denial that agnosticism can be used as a term to describe people who take neither of the opposing viewpoints on the existence of god?

Well look up humility and tolerance then.

I think and have demonstrated that agnosticism can be a position of neutrality. Fair enough if you disagree, like I said I'm not going to dance on the end of that needle with you. But if you want to go around calling people cowards or whatever you need to have a word with yourself.

It wasn't clear at all that they were personal views, so don't try and twist out of that one lol. So you think people who call themselves agnostic are wrong to do so because you don't accept the term as it is widely used. Fair enough that's fine with me. But you think they are weak and cowardly because they don't think the same as you - that says a lot about your character.

There is, we can go around and around on this one. I don't think you have to be a theist or atheist. I maintain agnosticism is a perfectly valid theological position to take. Why concern oneself in the belief that god 'does exist' or 'doesn't exist' without knowledge. However as I've said before I'm not concerned with labels or definitions, because they all do such a poor job of conveying complex ideas so lets stop dancing on the end of that needle shall we. Yes, a few pages ago you said. Are these personal views then? Or did you get this info from literature?

How exactly is it incorrect? "atheism" literally means "without theism". That's what the "a" at the start means, without. It's impossible for that definition to be incorrect. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist by definition. You keep on calling those elephants giraffes buddy. Ok, I tried, we will agree to disagree on definitions. Just for clarity can you tell me why you think it's a fact agnostics are people who are afraid to admit to atheism.

Google it, there is plenty of info out there.

I believe your definition to be incorrect. That is the answer, running through all my posts you seem strangely to have missed lol. Where on earth did you get this idea that people are afraid to admit to atheism from???

Well, I disagree, agnosticism is the view that the veracity of a god's existence is unknown or inherently unknowable. But I'm not going to get dragged into a debate on definitions, as I said at the beginning, they are labels that get in the way. Ideas are more important. I find it odd that you should think it's a fact that people who call themselves agnostic are 'too pussy' to admit they are atheists. Where did you find this fact, or is it just your opinion based on anecdotal evidence?

I linked to this before, but it deserves another link and a quote this time. Just because you're an atheist doesn't make you rational - Mark Steel. Mark Steel