Also, you are completely trolling, just throwing ☺☺☺☺ out there without actually saying anything, like normal. The only reason any of our threads ever really survive is because the mods pretty much stopped caring about us going off topic a long, long time ago.
I agree with Shiav on that groups of people are, or can be, higher powers. As a non-theist (Liberal) Quaker, when more Christ-centred Friends speak of God, I interpret it as "the union of the divinities of all people"; when I speak, I use various terms that they interpret as "God". The difference in precise meaning doesn't get in the way of us worshipping and working together (usually).
Doing something because you feel compelled by a duty to a group is very much being guided by a higher power. Realisation of something you can do to help your fellow man is certainly of the ilk of divine revelation.
I get that you validated your first statement by attaching it to Jefferson. That's not the point. Your repeated use of inflammatory and polarizing language is the point. You did not say, "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." You used the word "slavery" just like you use the word "evil". You do it to get a rise out of people. Then you make strawman arguments with what they say, accuse them of not be smart enough to understand your points, and then ignore their points. Honestly, you didn't shut me down once, even though you think that you did. But now I think I'm done with this line of thought. If you want to continue being obtuse, go for it.
TJ? Not much of a troll.
Twain was a troll, Churchhill was a troll. There are worse things to be called. Just remember that the words "I'm offended" are a meaningless whine.
Look, whether you want to believe me or not, I'm not a troll. I don't say things to get a rise out of people. My ideal response from people would be "Yeah I agree", as I think everyone posting would want. I find trolling pointless and annoying. Everything I say, I mean, and I use the same language on here that I do in real life conversations. I just get straight to the point and I don't care about sparing someone else's feelings or sensibilities. I call that being a straight shooter, others may call that being an a-hole. *shrug*
But no where in there am I simply mouthing off to watch people get angry.
Anyway, I apologize for sidetracking this thread. It was not my intention, but does seem to be my fault. I can accept on his word that Stethnorun is not intentionally trolling. He's just a jerk. The topic can be steered back in the right direction now.
Last edited by Joketa; 03-28-2012 at 07:01 PM. Reason: spelling
Agreed, in principal. But it fits the meaning and I was running with the narrative.I don't accept the use of the word troll outside of internet context.
Then again, fads don't always die. Sometimes fashionable words survive and join the language proper. In 20 years, who knows.
Can we at least agree that The Cure was an Emo band?
As far as I'm concerned The Cure was New Wave, albeit much darker and more complex than prototypical bands such as The Psychedelic Furs, New Order, Echo & The Bunnymen, etc. They were also more diverse in their inspiration and in their creation. For certain songs on Disintegration, such as the title track, I can certainly catch the connection to Emo, though you could also point at Progressive Rock. They are a pretty hard band to classify.
Brian Welch is one that comes to mind.
All that is true of fundamentalist christianity, right here in the U.S. of A. Not a third-world hellhole, no ... right on Main Street in Anytown USA.
Faith can be a wonderful thing. However, religion too often twists faith into something horrible.
Let me explain it this way: If the question is posed, "Is there a Deity" ...
- A theist will say "yes";
- An atheist will say "no";
- An agnostic will say "maybe".
There is a position which neither believes nor disbelieves in the existance of "God" (or Zeus, Odin, Amaterasu, Quetzalcoatl, or whomever).
Specifically, Agnosticism claims that the answer to that question is unknown, and even (for radical agnostics) CANNOT be known. A radical agnostic would consider both Theists and Atheists to be deluded fools, one and all.
Thus, to suggest that "agnostics are just a kind of atheist" is ... well, honestly I can't use that kind of language here, without piling up a mountain of infraction points. Suffice to say, in the words of Yosemite Sam: "Them's fightin' words, pardner!"
So, please: cease and desist even hinting at such a thing.
..... and you go right back on the s**t-list.
A society's value is measured in how they treat the most needy among them. And cold-hearted callousness, an Ebeneezer Scrooge-like "they should die and decrease the surplus population" dismissal of others' suffering and need? Does not speak well to that value.
One needn't be religious or spiritual, to be compassionate, nor to feel empathy for one's fellows.
Case in point: me. I have a non-physical disability (no, you're not going to be made privy to the details, so don't bother asking). The federal government has determined, via a panel of medical and other experts, that I am unable to secure and retain gainful employment.
My family? Poor, every one of them. The ones who aren't already dead, anyway.
Friends? I don't make many; one symptom of my issues is that I'm not very outgoing, in person. Never have been, either.
Private charities? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ....
The ones that don't require ascribing to their religious doctrines and beliefs? Well, there was one homeless shelter, and soup kitchen, that I found. "Nice" place, rat- and roach-infested, filthy, rundown, and in some parts, almost more of a health hazard than sleeping under a bridge. Oh, and you did't take off your shoes, nor your coat, to sleep. If anything, you tied them on TIGHTER, if you wanted to still have them in the morning.
You see, I actually have been homeless. I've spent the night under a bridge, and huddled in an alley. I've gone over a week without food, even a single bite. And not because I made bad choices, nor because I'm lazy or irresponsible. No, because of the way I was born. No greater justification than the color of one's skin, or their height, or their shoe size.
And I am dead certain, with your attitude towards the needy, that you haven't been faced with hardships nearly that bad. Noone who had ever faced that in their lives, could possibly feel as you profess here.
Last edited by _Pax_; 03-29-2012 at 06:14 PM.
Agnosticism does make infinitely more sense to me than atheism, as I can't see a situation where I could ever say "this is completely impossible no matter what". I ascribe to Theism simply because it feels right.
Religion has caused much and is still causing much pain in the world. The Church could do more to end AIDS in Africa than any other organization on the planet but doesn't out of their back-words view. Both Christian and Muslim extremists in the US and Middle East have an incredibly intolerant view of the world. But this is what man has made of God, not the other way around. If you read the new testament, no where will Jesus say that homosexuality is bad. He will never say to fight on his behalf, or to shun those who don't believe. In the words of Gandhi "Christ, I like. Christians, not so much."
But most people don't ask that question, precisely because the answer is obvious. What they DO ask is, "Do you believe in a god?" Pax, sorry to say, but you do not, and that makes you an atheist. Belief is an active, participatory mindset. No one "passively believes" in something. When someone asks you if you believe in gravity, you don't say "I don't know, and we can never REALLY know". You say "Of course", because you aren't willfully trying to dodge the question.
Your agnosticism is a willful dodge. You are answering a question that no one asked and avoiding a question that people DO ask.
Penn says it better than I could: http://commonamericanjournal.com/?p=41335
And the people that answer the question like that are dodging. If they don't know, then they don't believe. I don't KNOW either. But that means I don't believe. It's a pretty simple point I'm making.
I'm curious and surprised _Pax_, I do not think I talked about agnosticism in that quote. Nor would I claim agnostics as a subset of atheism. You may as well have chastised me for talking about your mother, she was equally relevant to my quote there
I get that the previous quote was comparing the two, but I complained about the term MILITANT atheism, and the idea that atheist think "you are stupid if you think there is"*a god*
Some do, certainly. Personally I think it is much more common for theists to express such a defense mechanism. You are probably right that agnostics are even less likely to give a care what others think, but that doesn't mean those terribly mis-described "militants" define atheism.