Originally posted by lazs2
subaru said.... "If I believed it were possible, I would then be Agnostic."
well... that is bad news for most of the rest of the "athiests" here. they are now agnostics.
I admire you for your honesty and for your strong faith in something like athiesm. It seems a little peevish and strange to me but... your choice.
How do you feel about all these agnostics calling themselves athiests?
I also note that you are now avoiding "I believe" and the word "faith" when speaking of your unprovable faith in athiesm... the much more clever "my thoughts on" does not do anything to dispell the feeling that athiests are dishonest and slippery with an agenda tho.
lazs
Actually I don't care what one's belief or nonbelief when it comes to religion and or God. As long as it doesn't impact me negatively. I think that can be said for all of us here.
As to some Agnostics calling themselves Atheists seems to be about symantics of the definitions, not about a deliberate attempt to deceive. What would they have to gain or lose really?
It's not like say someone in position to hire another individual lying to that individual because that individual happens to be a minority, that he would not want that minority to be aroid to cause "trouble" just so said hiring individual can continue to say ceretain race sensitive commentary/jokes in his workplace. Now that would be dishonest, and promoting an agenda as well.
This "argument" you've created here is silly as to the character and honesty of individuals basing it on no other thanthe labels they choose to call themselves.
Maybe more important you should base it more on lying for personal gain or to try to destroy another's character.
...or do they cheat at things....do they break the laws...etc.
Again for true Atheists:
1) There is no faith involved.
2) What is my agenda again? (You've avoided this question. Maybe it is you with the agenda.)
Again, because you can't possibly really think that there is not a possibility of a God, it serves your purpose to call the nonfaith in something existing as a faith. It then lends support for your "agenda" of promoting God, or more specifically the negating the non-religious viewpoint(Atheism) in a Church and State argument. The "I've got to call Atheism a religion" argument serves the believers of God, not the Atheists.
You were saying something about honesty?
So I take it you really didn't mean it when you said it was possible that the Atheist could be right?
You're argument gives that away.
Well I have to go to work.
