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.

Sorry not to be clear. What I was trying to say was that everyone wants to live a quiet and peaceful life... but that does not resolve one of responsibility for one's actions or beliefs.

The majority of people who want to live in peace generally have nothing to do with any of the violence we see.

Secondly, whilst recognising the the inherent weakness of surveys and opinion polls, they are not totally without value.

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...........

One could probably say the same for paedophiles and nazis.

What? You'll have to explain that one.

Meanwhile it is estimated that over one third of Afghans support the Taliban... just as one half of young muslims in this country approved of 9/11.

... and whilst we all prattle on and make jokes about believers, take a look at what they are actually up to:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19562692

Which is why the filth they peddle needs round the clock, wall to wall insulting.

.......................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.

Theres not a debate to be had.

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.

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.

It's not about not thinking the same as me, it's about doing everything they can to try to avoid using a word that simply means "not a theist". It says a lot about their characters

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 no disagreeing on definitions, the meaning is implied by the word.

There is, we can go around and around on this one. I don't think you have to be a theist or atheist.

You either believe in God, in which case you're a theist, or you don't in which case you're not a theist, and guess what word literally means "not a theist" atheist!

Charles Darwin."I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."

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.

I say that people that say they aren't atheist but are instead agnostic are too scared to admit to their atheism for some reason.

Yes, a few pages ago you said.

I hate it when someone calls themselves agnostic, because what they really mean is "I'm atheist, but I'm too much of a pussy to want to tell people that I don't believe in God".

Are these personal views then? Or did you get this info from literature?

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???

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.

Just for clarity can you tell me why you think it's a fact agnostics are people who are afraid to admit to atheism.

I have never heard the expression "weak agnosticism". Agnosticism is not a scale. Either you have knowledge that god(s) exist or you don't.

If these aren't your own personal definitions, please can you tell us where you get them from as they are apparently unknown to the people you are debating with.

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.

Having followed the latest debate about religion, I'd say the conclusion is obvious that the only thing as disturbing as the religious is the modern atheist. I'd noticed this before, after I was slightly critical of Richard Dawkins and received piles of fuming replies, that made me think that what his followers would like is to scientifically create an eternity in laboratory conditions so that they could burn me there for all of it.

It's not the rationality that's alarming, it's the smugness. Instead of trying to understand religion, if the modern atheist met a peasant in a village in Namibia, he'd shriek: "Of course, GOD didn't create light, it's a mixture of waves and particles you idiot, it's OBVIOUS."

The connection between the religious and the modern atheist was illustrated after the death of Christopher Hitchens, when it was reported that "tributes were led by Tony Blair". I know you can't dictate who leads your tributes, and it's probable that when Blair's press office suggested that he made one to someone who'd passed on, he said: "Oh, which dictator I used to go on holiday with has died NOW?"

But the commendation was partly Hitchens's fault. Because the difference between the modern atheist and the Enlightenment thinkers who fought the church in the 18th century is that back then they didn't make opposition to religion itself their driving ideology. They opposed the lack of democracy justified by the idea that a king was God's envoy on earth, and they wished for a rational understanding of the solar system, rather than one based on an order ordained by God that matched the view that everyone in society was born into a fixed status.

But once you make it your primary aim to refute the existence of God, you can miss what's really fundamental. For example, the ex-canon of St Paul's, presumably a believer unless he managed to fudge the issue in the interview, was on the radio this week expressing why he resigned in support of the protesters outside his old cathedral. He spoke with inspiring compassion, but was interrupted by an atheist who declared the Christian project is doomed because we're scientifically programmed to look after ourselves at the expense of anyone else. So the only humane rational scientific thought to have was "GO Christian, GO, Big up for the Jesus posse."

Similarly, Hitchens appears to have become obsessed with defying religion, so made himself one of the most enthusiastic supporters for a war he saw as being against the craziness of Islam. But the war wasn't about God or Allah, it was about more earthly matters, which the people conducting that war understood. And, as that war became predictably disastrous, they were grateful for whatever support they could find. And so a man dedicated to disproving GOD was praised in his death by the soppiest, sickliest, most, irrational, hypocritical Christian of them all.

So the only thing I know for certain is that I would become a Christian, if I could just get round the fact that there is no GOD.

Mark Steel