Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Agnostic atheism: a reasonable position on spiritual matters, or the only reasonable position... [View all]gcomeau
(5,764 posts)117. There's always something to address.
For example, justifying why you don't agree with the premise. That's something to address.
"When the definition of a word begins to change, it will change no matter how you rail against it."
I am not arguing about whether the definition of the word has been added to. (It has not changed. It has simply been given an alternate definition by the uninformed who are unaware of the original, meaningful definition). I am arguing about whether the new additional definition of the word is *rational* and can be meaningfully applied to real people to describe real states. (Which it cannot).
"You think they're wrong, but they don't care if you do. "
That is just another dodge. Instead of dealing with criticism of a position just declare that any criticism is irrelevant because you don't want to listen to it and your position is your position because you want it to be. LALALALALALALA.
Yes, people can do that. But I will not be expected to just act like that's a mature and rational approach to any dispute... that's the kind of bullshit approach to the world that gives us things like the Fox News Reality Bubble. I am not going to pretend that's ok just because it's people here doing it instead. If a person's position can't withstand engaging with serious criticism that should be setting off warning bells in their head, not causing them to burrow deeper into their comfortable little cocoon and clamp their hands over their ears.
And I'm going to keep right on poking those bubbles with sharp objects. No matter whose little reality-denying world it contains.
"You demand that people engage with you only on your terms."
Asking you to present some kind of argument for your position or against mine instead of just avoiding doing so with a bunch of excuses while declaring me wrong by decree is not some unreasonable demand for you to "engage on my terms". It's an expectation that if you're going to participate in the discussion then *engage at all*. Don't just show up to tell me all about how you're not going to deal with anything I'm saying. You can throw around all the accusations about my grating personality you want but THAT is profoundly rude and disrespectful and it was your opening move.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
117 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Agnostic atheism: a reasonable position on spiritual matters, or the only reasonable position... [View all]
Htom Sirveaux
Jul 2014
OP
The point is that usually even our "supernatural" God is said to effect visible material things
Brettongarcia
Jul 2014
#27
It may be more a piece of exploring one's identity. Sexual identity and religious preference
pinto
Jul 2014
#15
No. I choose to let people call themselves whatever it is they prefer. And I'll follow their lead.
pinto
Jul 2014
#21
As a general rule, I agree that people's self-definitions should be respected.
Htom Sirveaux
Jul 2014
#23
My statement was meant for both believers and non-believers. Sorry if that was not clear.
cbayer
Jul 2014
#26
No, but I can find you lots of definitions of agnosticism that sees it as a stand
cbayer
Jul 2014
#68
But I do that all the time. You just refuse to acknowledge it because it doesn't fit into your
cbayer
Jul 2014
#82
Agnosticism is a good default position. Until evidence begins to pile up against religion
Brettongarcia
Jul 2014
#31
I meant it in the sense of "I don't know". Which I think is a common default position.
pinto
Jul 2014
#49
? Doesn't it mean "not knowing"? Or acknowledging doubt, uncertainty, or perhaps disinterest?
pinto
Jul 2014
#51
OK. I'm an agnostic, not out of ignorance or irrationality, but out of a reasoned point of view.
pinto
Jul 2014
#56
Some people are really invested in evading the question of whether or not god exists.
AtheistCrusader
Jul 2014
#73
While you can make the argument that atheism is just a passive non-position, the
cbayer
Jul 2014
#111
To me, the knowing would trump believing. Believing would be unnecessary if you knew.
Demit
Jul 2014
#98