Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Without resorting to google or wiki, what’s an agnostic?

What John Humphrys identifies as. Part of which I understand is "failed atheist".

[Maeght]

What John Humphrys identifies as. Part of which I understand is "failed atheist".

But what do you think it means?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But what do you think it means?

I mentioned it half jokingly to show how Atheocrats might justify that belief and rebuff criticism.
No they might say. It wouldn't be an atheocracy because agnostics could rule too and anyway since we are agnostic atheists we can never be guilty of wanting an atheocracy. What we want hasn't got a name and we can talk our way out of criticism so theists shouldn't be put in ruling positions.

And yes I am lampooning atheocratic argument.

[Maeght]

I mentioned it half jokingly to show how Atheocrats might justify that belief and rebuff criticism.
No they might say. It wouldn't be an atheocracy because agnostics could rule too and anyway since we are agnostic atheists we can never be guilty of wanting an atheocracy. What we want hasn't got a name and we can talk our way out of criticism so theists shouldn't be put in ruling positions.

And yes I am lampooning atheocratic argument.

But what do you think it means?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But what do you think it means?

What John Humphrys thinks it is.

[Maeght]

What John Humphrys thinks it is.

Which is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is?

Neither an atheist or a theist

[Maeght]

Neither an atheist or a theist

Ah right, so neither you or John Humphries undersrand what agnistic means then.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah right, so neither you or John Humphries undersrand what agnistic means then.

Oh go on then, not that it matters since anyone wanting theists out of ruling office is an atheocrat.

[ProfessorDavey]

Neither an atheist or a theist

Wrong - I am both an atheist and agnostic, as I suspect are many others here. There will also be plenty of theist agnostics here too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong - I am both an atheist and agnostic, as I suspect are many others here. There will also be plenty of theist agnostics here too.

You may well be that Dave, but what about agnostics who do not identify as atheist? Tell me that.

[ProfessorDavey]

You may well be that Dave, but what about agnostics who do not identify as atheist? Tell me that.

They exist too, but that is irrelevant.

You claimed that an agnostic was 'Neither an atheist or a theist' - that is simply wrong and in a Popper-esque manner is proven to be wrong by the existence someone who is both an atheist and agnostic.

The two term refer to entirely different things namely belief (or lack of) in one case and knowledge (or lack of) in the other case.

[Rhiannon]

You may well be that Dave, but what about agnostics who do not identify as atheist? Tell me that.

You are confusing those who think that God or the existence of God is unknowable, with those who do not know if god exists or not.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thinks .......shall I hang around for the inevitable accusation of liking Marmite?
Cue person telling me I'm wrong and hate it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

It really isn't making the sane mistake as Vlad because at no point have I argued treating beliefs differently if they are religious beliefs vs non religious beliefs.

I haven’t suggested that you have, and it’s not relevant in any case. What I’m saying is that the content of a belief isn’t the issue – rather it’s the privileged status given to suites of religious beliefs in particular (for example the CofE ones) in civil society.

I am afraid that from the opposite viewpoint from Vlad, it's youwho mirror him.

That’s not it at all. We all “mirror him” to the extent that we all think there are certain beliefs (and behaviours that follow) that we think shouldn’t be permissible. Sometimes those beliefs have no religious connotations (paedophile wanting to be a teacher), sometimes they do (ISIS Mullah wanting to joint the RAF). The point though concerns what happens when a society decides that those with one status (ie, the religious ones) should have special, privileged treatment over the others (ie, the non-religious ones).   

That's the reason why I am arguing with both of you here because you each want to privilege a set of beliefs, simply because they are religious versus non religious.

That’s simply not true. What set of beliefs do you think I want to privilege given that every post I’ve made argues for removing them?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seriously, we’re back to terminology again?

I’m an atheist because I’ve never seen an argument for god(s) that isn’t broken, so I have no reason to think they exist.

I’m an agnostic because the claim “God” seems to me to be unknowable. 

I’m an ignostic because I have no idea what the people who assert “God” mean by it (and nor it seems have they).

I’m an anti-theist because, whether true or not, it seems to me that more bad things than good happen when people do believe in god(s) and act on those beliefs (essentially because “faith” tends to create polarised and absolutist positions).

So what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Well at least you have me thinking, just been on the NSS web site.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2018/02/sturgeons-praise-for-catholic-schools-will-exacerbate-scotlands-tribal-divisions

But their head line got me me thinking "150 YEARS OF CHALLENGING RELIGIOUS PRIVILEGE" that long, wow!! ( that's a sarcastic wow by the way )

Quite so: challenging religious privilege, not challenging religion.

Be nice if someone could explain that to Vladdo.

[Maeght]

Oh go on then, not that it matters since anyone wanting theists out of ruling office is an atheocrat.

Is there anyi point in trying once again to explain it to you? You've never listened to or understood the explanation before so why would it beany different this time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seriously, we’re back to terminology again?

I’m an atheist because I’ve never seen an argument for god(s) that isn’t broken, so I have no reason to think they exist.

I’m an agnostic because the claim “God” seems to me to be unknowable. 

I’m an ignostic because I have no idea what the people who assert “God” mean by it (and nor it seems have they).

I’m an anti-theist because, whether true or not, it seems to me that more bad things than good happen when people do believe in god(s) and act on those beliefs (essentially because “faith” tends to create polarised and absolutist positions).

So what?

Oh supersecularscientismicexpiatheocrat
if you believe it hard enough you'll end looking like a, etc

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there anyi point in trying once again to explain it to you? You've never listened to or understood the explanation before so why would it beany different this time?

What has this to do with the much vaunted atheocracy?

[Maeght]

What has this to do with the much vaunted atheocracy?

Nothing, why should it? This thread isn't directly about either, but you clearly now want to deflect posts away from your misunderstanding and misuse of a term on here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

As I've said before you can't go far wrong with Wikipedia.

In which Vladdo fails to recall that he consistently "goes wrong with Wikipedia" when he cites it and it actually contradicts the personal definitions of the terms he attempts.

Sooo funny.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vladdo fails to recall that he consistently "goes wrong with Wikipedia" when he cites it and it actually contradicts the personal definitions of the terms he attempts.

Sooo funny.

I think people can read Wikipedia and my posts for themselves thank you Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I think people can read Wikipedia and my posts for themselves thank you Hillside.

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that that that's his problem 

[SteveH]

In which Vladdo fails to grasp that that that's his problem 

In which British Home Stores trots out his increasingly tiresome "In which..." line again, under the false belief that it's witty.