Atheists fail to riot at threat to burn The God Delusion

[milquetoast1]

I think Atheism is a belief in the non-existence of god. Simply not believing would be more agnostic.

Though I would like to draw a distinction to the Born Again Agnostics, who firmly believe that there may, or may not be a God, rather than wishy washy uncertainty.

 

Theism/atheism refers to belief. The theist believes in a god, the "a"theist is without such belief.

 

Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. The gnostic claims knowledge, the "a"gnostic is without it.

 

The pope is a gnostic theist, or more specifically a gnostic Catholic.

 

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't pretend to know, but I reject the claims for god.

 

In reality, if we are honest, we are all agnostic about the claims of god. It's the gnostics that scare the poo out of me, wether that certainty is religious or political.

[spindrift]

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

Full article online: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

[Hairyloon]

Theism/atheism refers to belief. The theist believes in a god, the "a"theist is without such belief.

 

Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. The gnostic claims knowledge, the "a"gnostic is without it.

 

The pope is a gnostic theist, or more specifically a gnostic Catholic.

I disagree with your definitions, but not enough to have a big row about it.

 

According to a recent study published in The American Journal of Psychiatry religious affiliation is associated with significantly lower levels of suicide compared to religiously unaffiliated people, atheists and agnostics. Source: Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004).

Full article online: http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

I would suggest that the religious affiliation gives those people a social connection which the others lack, and it is simply that which causes the differential.

[six45ive]

I disagree with your definitions, but not enough to have a big row about it.

 

There's nothing to disagree with. Milquetoast's definition of the terms atheist and agnostic are spot on. To say you disagree with them is the same as saying you disagree with somebody who says that 2+2=4.

[evildrneil]

Gnosticism/agnosticism refers to knowledge. The gnostic claims knowledge, the "a"gnostic is without it.

 

While gnosticism is from one of the greek words for knowledge it refers specifically to mystical illumination / enlightenment rather and any sort of rational scientific or book learning type of knowledge (which would be episteme). It would be closer to translate it as not knowing god or being spiritually unelightened rather not having any reasoned knowledge of whether god exists or not.

[flamingjimmy]

That was one of the worst, lamest most trite attempts at satire I've ever read!

 

Of course you didn't like it, you don't like atheists, and it's written kind of from an atheistic point of view.

 

Says nothing about the quality of the satire just about your prejudice.

[evildrneil]

Of course you didn't like it, you don't like atheists, and it's written kind of from an atheistic point of view.

 

Says nothing about the quality of the satire just about your prejudice.

 

Actually I have no problem with atheist, or theists for that matter, unless they are aggressive, obnoxious, insulting and try and claim their world view as absolute truth. I didn't like the satire as I found it obvious,somewhat childish and lacking in any sort of wit.

[flamingjimmy]

Actually I have no problem with atheist, or theists for that matter, unless they are aggressive, obnoxious, insulting and try and claim their world view as absolute truth. I didn't like the satire as I found it obvious,somewhat childish and lacking in any sort of wit.

 

Sorry bro, but I don't believe you, my past experience on here tells me otherwise.

 

I have noticed you tend to dislike anyone who's vocal with their atheism.

 

You like to paint atheists and the religious as different sides of the same coin, hence your signature, and tend to act like you're above both groups, it can be quite condescending.

 

So obviously you wouldn't like to read a satirical article that neatly and humorously points out a huge difference between the two groups, specifically that the religious are much more likely to make threats of violence because of their beliefs.

 

On the plus side you're a lot better than a lot of people about this kind of thing, at least you're not going to call me a militant atheist extremist or something like that.

[evildrneil]

Sorry bro, but I don't believe you, my past experience on here tells me otherwise.

 

Being wrong is of course your perogative

 

I have noticed you tend to dislike anyone who's vocal with their atheism.

 

Then you've missed the point of what I've said

 

You like to paint atheists and the religious as different sides of the same coin, hence your signature, and tend to act like you're above both groups, it can be quite condescending.

 

I like to point out that some athiests and some theists can behave in very similar ways- i.e. being shrill, agressive, promote their beliefs and world view as The Truth and denegrate and attack those who hold different beliefs.

 

So obviously you wouldn't like to read a satirical article that neatly and humorously points out a huge difference between the two groups, specifically that the religious are much more likely to make threats of violence because of their beliefs.

 

You're reading far too much into the fact that I didn't like a pretty poor attempt at satire. You obviously hold a different oppinion which is fair enough and I won't try and psychoanalyse you based on your tastes...

[flamingjimmy]

Then you've missed the point of what I've said

No, I haven't missed the point, I don't believe you.

 

Of course you're not going to admit your prejudice, people rarely ever do, even to themselves.

 

You're reading far too much into the fact that I didn't like a pretty poor attempt at satire. You obviously hold a different oppinion which is fair enough and I won't try and psychoanalyse you based on your tastes...

I'd hardly call it psychoanalysis, like I said it was obvious, right up on the surface. But I suppose this has gotten a little personal too fast, I'm sorry and I will stop.