Respect towards atheists

[Chris]

You overlooked a rather important chunk of the definition there. By Webster itself as you cited, faith is also a firm belief for something for which there is no proof.

The key word there is firm. Faith is a firm belief, not just any belief.

Atheism does not provide proof that their is no higher power, but people with this viewpoint certainly hold this belief firmly more often than not.

Only because no verifiable proof has been brought up to counter that belief. People aren't born with a belief in deities, so the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person being asked to believe it.

That's not to say an atheist can't religiously hold their belief (and effectively turn it into their religion). But that's not what atheism is.

[Morkulv]

@morkluv: get your head out of your arse.

You made this thread complaining about a lack of respect for Atheists, people were largely respectful, even Terastas while he was voicing his own personal gripes with some atheists.

Suggesting Atheism is a religious stance is NOT AN INSULT TO ATHEISM... it's merely a hard fact when you get down to the nature of such viewpoints.

Atheism is a religious view. Agnosticism is a religious view....both just as much as Christianity is a religious view. Does this diminish their validity? NO. Unless you're claiming Atheism is some high-and-mighty "correct" stance... which it is NOT, it's an opinion regarding abstract concepts and theoretical beings that we cannot see or prove.

If you want your view respected, respect other people's views and respect that your view on this matter is no more valid than theirs. Quibbling over this is idiotic.

I'm not going in discussion with people who are not willing to take other posts serious, simple as that. Terastas posts are so contradicting its laughable. First he says I'm reacting pissed because he thinks that I'm offended by the word religion, then when I adress HIS belief (agnostisism) he gets pissed almost instantly. If you can't take this sort of critisism you have no place in a forumdiscussion, and I'm not going to reply anymore to him because I know that he will only throw around childish insults when he runs out of things to say sooner or later. Great for at a elementary school perhaps, but annoying on a forum, and I don't want to get another topic locked over him being an asshole.

[Howlitzer]

You overlooked a rather important chunk of the definition there. By Webster itself as you cited, faith is also a firm belief for something for which there is no proof.

The key word there is firm. Faith is a firm belief, not just any belief.

Atheism does not provide proof that their is no higher power, but people with this viewpoint certainly hold this belief firmly more often than not.

Only because no verifiable proof has been brought up to counter that belief. People aren't born with a belief in deities, so the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person being asked to believe it.

That's not to say an atheist can't religiously hold their belief (and effectively turn it into their religion). But that's not what atheism is.

@Chris: You also seem to have ignored the rest of what I said:

You overlooked a rather important chunk of the definition there. By Webster itself as you cited, faith is also a firm belief for something for which there is no proof.

Atheism does not provide proof that their is no higher power, but people with this viewpoint certainly hold this belief firmly more often than not.

By that definition, as they hold this belief without proof....in that case, it is faith. Faith comes in varying degrees, as does the level of faith any person has in their view...whether they are an atheist, agnostic, buddhist, christian...whatever. They are all religious viewpoints regardless of intensity.

Gauging what is faith and what is not by level of intensity is fuzzy, bullshit logic at BEST...it's a subjective assessment of the matter.

Also....hello people? Wake up and smell the pointless argument here.

Atheism is a belief concerning religion, it pertains to religion, the topic of religion, and deals with the questions religions deal with. ATHEISM IS A BELIEF PERTAINING TO RELIGION. Thus, it is a religious belief. This DOESN'T diminish Atheism in any way, shape, or form.....so unless the Atheists are insulted by the prospect that they aren't something logically "better"... why are we arguing about this?! SERIOUSLY?!

This topic was about respect towards Atheists....not about conceding that Atheism is inherently above a "religious" belief. Atheism is a religious belief, deserving of as much respect as any other religious belief. Get over it. Get over yourselves. Please.

Where does one draw the line between belief and firm belief that makes Atheism a non-faith? That is a SUBJECTIVE question, one which you ignored despite its importance... you can have varying degrees of faith, and varying degrees of belief...

... but I challenge you to tell me where you can draw a line that says "this belief, for which there is no proof behind, is not strong enough to be considered even a weak faith, therefore Atheism doesn't involve faith".... Seriously, your argument suggests you think you can, so humor me.


and @morkluv: Terastas was actually being pretty civil...recent posts have given him every reason to be getting a bit enraged now. You pretty much proverbially slapped him in the face there, repeatedly ignoring chunks of his responses and now BLATANTLY declaring that you're going to ignore his rebuttal.

As for me, I was taking your posts seriously...don't accuse me of otherwise. I was considering your arguments, but if there's a logical flaw in your argument I have every reason in this discussion to point it out.

Sorry, but you're the one being childish here. If you can't put up with differing viewpoints, don't bring up the discussion...and certainly don't expect respect for your viewpoint if you're going to act as such.

[Morkulv]

No, being enraged is childish behaviour. I could have gone ALL-CAPS on him when he called atheism a religion numerous times, but did I do that? No. Its not that hard you know. Plus it also showed his sensibility towards people who think other then him, hence I am ignoring his posts.

Also, my name is not Morkluv.

[Howlitzer]

...I apologize for the name misspelling. I honestly had been reading it the other way this whole time.

Terastas was on a short fuse and you were pushing his buttons the entire time...maintaining circular arguments like you have been doing is going to wear on people, that does not make them childish.

Nonetheless, you still haven't fully responded to my counterpoints either.

[Terastas]

Terastas, although I agree with your statements on the difference between atheism and agnosticism (atheism deals with belief, and agnosticism deals with knowledge), could you clarify what you mean by this:

Atheism, on the other hand, is a system of belief that not only denies the existence of a higher power, but also the existence of karma, life after death, or any sort of moral code apart from "might makes right" or "majority rule."

Are you saying that atheists by default believe in majority rule and "might makes right," or I am mistaken?

If anything, yes. By Morkulv's own admission, atheism has no rules, IE: no karma, no concept of sin, no eternal reward or damnation, nothing to distinguish between right and wrong. I'm not saying that atheists can't have any other political or philosophical ideologies -- only that Atheism by default doesn't come with any.

No, I'm ignoring you, in the same way that you ignore my arguments. I don't care about your opinion, because the only thing that counts for you is the number of people who agree with you (which is very clear from your posts). You are welcome to start calling me names again like you always do when you run out of things to say. Also, I was not replying to you so please don't reply to me.

Byebye.

No, you're ignoring me because there's nothing else you can do. Your argument that atheism is some kind of holy higher ground over all other religions has just been torn a new one sevenfold so now the only thing you can do to keep it alive is take petty potshots at the people in this discussion while you pretend to be ignoring them.

I didn't object to you insulting agnosticism -- I objected to you using "agnosticism" as a synonym for "atheism," and even then I only took offense to it after I had made the clarification and you continued to treat them as synonyms anyway.

You accuse me of only caring about how many people agree with me -- big load of bull. You know my track record -- have I ever cared about how many people agree with me? I've even butted heads over politics with people that had the power to ban me. I only back down when someone can prove me wrong -- not when I'm threatened or an announcement is made that I'm being ignored.

I don't even think you know what it is that you're trying to defend anymore. This is the "ban on minarets" thread all over again. That one started with you bashing Muslims but ended with you trumpeting European supremacy, and this one began with you complaining that you get no respect but is now ending with you propping your beliefs up above all the others and taking potshots at everyone else down below.

You complained that nobody respects you as an atheist, but why should they when you clearly have no respect for anyone else?

What exactly is it that you are trying to accomplish by remaining in this threads Morkulv? Do you have a point to be made, or do you not care what the hell comes out of your mouth just as long as you have the last word? Right now, the evidence is all pointing to the latter.

[Sebiale]

I vote for a thread lock. The topic is/was a nice little reminder of courtesy at first, but it's kind of turning into a monkey fight now.
The original concept of the OP is pretty much covered in the TOS. If you find something extremely offensive to you, you report it. A rant on the subject is unnecessary.
~ In my humble opinion.

[Morkulv]

...Terastas was on a short fuse and you were pushing his buttons the entire time...maintaining circular arguments like you have been doing is going to wear on people, that does not make them childish.

'Pushing his buttons'? Really? Are you serious? I hope your joking.

Alright, I'm done with this discussion.

[Howlitzer]

Good. I'm tired of repeating myself when my points are being ignored for the *same circular return argument*. On my end at least... discussion terminated.

[Silent Hunter]

Wow what a mess. I am glad to see a mod in here (Redeye) but wow. I admit I was a bit aggressive and I would like to say to Ter, Howl and AA that I was a bit of an arse and I am sorry for that. Hmn

I do want to ask Howl, how was Mov pushing Ters buttons?

[alphanubilus]

Wow what a mess. I am glad to see a mod in here (Redeye) but wow. I admit I was a bit aggressive and I would like to say to Ter, Howl and AA that I was a bit of an arse and I am sorry for that. Hmn

I do want to ask Howl, how was Mov pushing Ters buttons?

I will be honest... I didn't think you were, then again, I don't let other people's opinions, even if I strongly believe they are wrong, offend me, so I wouldn't have known if you had been. My over all point of view is, there are too many wonderful things in the world to enjoy, than waist time being angry over trivial things.

As for Mov pushing Ters buttons... to be frank, he was pushing all the red buttons... you know that big ones that state, "Don't Push". Had he pushed the green ones, I think he would have been safe. See folks this is what happens when you continously play on Xbox Live! Too many darned buttons!

So again, Silent Hunter, I always welcome a rigorous religious debate, as it challenges me to study harder, so there is now foul being cried by me.

[RedEye]

This thread has wandered all over the place and is now about 180 degrees away from what it started out being.

It was suggested that I lock the thread. I'm doing so, since it's either accomplished its purpose or has wandered away from it entirely.

Having done its purpose, one way or another; it now goes to sleep.