28 Responses to “The problem with the belief in the “supernatural””
on 07 Apr 2009 at 2:26 pm 1.Lou said …
How about this scenario.
I am an atheist
I am a welder
God does not exist
Rehearsing your own prejudices
Atheist often do not use the word “believe” (opinion) but rather state with authority God does not exist. They fall into this little scenario but they have switched places. They have even take on the role of evangelism like the other denominational counterparts.
Multitudes of theist are scientist, logical and they follow the evidence where it leads. To imply otherwise is nothing more than close-mindedness.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 3:23 am 2.Hermes said …
Lou: “Atheist often do not use the word “believe” (opinion) but rather state with authority God does not exist.”
Now that you’ve been informed, if you are honest you will have to acknowledge it and not push misinformation.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 11:05 am 3.Lou said …
Thanks Hermes. You link strengthened my supposition. In reality, I don’t need to see a list of the various atheist divisions but WOW you guys are really divided. I thought since was a belief supposedly cemented in science you would be a little more unified. All I needed for my conclusion was the various comments on this blog.
If you truly subscribe to the AA version, you do realize your reality is not in essence necessarily true? Therefore, attempting to push it on others is a religious exercise.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 4:56 pm 4.anonymous said …
Lou:”Thanks Hermes. You link strengthened my supposition. In reality, I don’t need to see a list of the various atheist divisions but WOW you guys are really divided.”
You make yourself look like a fool Lou. Read through the different positions in the link again. They include religious and non-religious positions, which is why there are so many. Atheist positions only make up a small fraction of what is there.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 8:10 pm 5.Lou said …
Well, anonymous, I never made such a claim. You made an assumption. Yes, my friend I realize ALL where not atheistic religions but regardless there are still many atheist denominations. Admittedly, I did not study the list as most individuals don’t bother with such labels.
It didn’t even include Strong Atheist, Weak Atheist, Iconoclasts, Non-Theists, Implicit, Explicit or the Spiritual Atheist. Some possibilities to consider.
You need to stick to topic and stop looking for the “Gotcha” moment and consider a handle like Mortimer or maybe Chaldean. You would be more effective.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 10:20 pm 6.Handle said …
Lou said: ”Thanks Hermes. You link strengthened my supposition. In reality, I don’t need to see a list of the various atheist divisions but WOW you guys are really divided.”
Again, I will post the quote for you. I did not make any assumptions. You did. What I said was based upon what YOU wrote above.
Lou said: “Admittedly, I did not study the list as most individuals don’t bother with such labels.”
Titles like ‘Strong Atheist’ and ‘Weak Atheist’ and ‘Non-Theist’ are already within the link under different names, another testament to the fact that you DID NOT BOTHER TO READ IT! So since you did not bother to read it, why do you make assumptions about what it says?
FYI Lou, almost every single religious position is listed in that link (hint: read the definitions). If one was missed, please let us know AFTER you read all the ones that are already listed(I know, actually DOING research is tough, isn’t it?). I’m sure Hermes would be like to know if he left one out and add it to the list for the future.
Also, an iconoclast IS NOT a religious position, it is simply someone who destroys religious symbols. ANYONE can be an iconoclast regardless of their religious position. For example, stating that the list did not include iconoclasts makes as much sense as saying the list did not include republicans and vegetarians.
By the way I took your advice and chose a name.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 11:09 pm 7.Lou said …
Good for you my friend. I liked the messiah btw. (eh close enough) One of you better efforts.
I accept your apology. Don’t make assumptions in the future. It can burn you.
Example: I said I did not STUDY the list. I NEVER stated I did not READ it. See how you read things that are not there? I also never stated I memorized it. A very bad habit. Not good, not good at all.
As for Iconoclast, you looked it up but you don’t realize others may disagree as I do with you.
There’s not really a difference in studying and reading. It was all about COMPREHENSION and understanding the list.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 11:51 pm 9.Handle said …
Lou said: “I accept your apology. Don’t make assumptions in the future. It can burn you.”
No apologies Lou, and again you completely miss my point. YOU made assumptions about what was in the list(not to mention assuming I’m going to apologize to you, hypocrite). Your words quoted below AGAIN.
Lou said: “Thanks Hermes. You link strengthened my supposition. In reality, I don’t need to see a list of the various atheist divisions but WOW you guys are really divided.”
See, funny how you try to make this about assumptions that I make when its completely obvious that you made assumptions in this paragraph. I think they have a name for that.
Lou said: “I said I did not STUDY the list. I NEVER stated I did not READ it. See how you read things that are not there? I also never stated I memorized it. A very bad habit. Not good, not good at all.”
Oh really? So you read some of it? Wait, actually you didn’t. Because if you did, you wouldn’t have made the following statement.
Lou said: “It didn’t even include Strong Atheist, Weak Atheist, Iconoclasts, Non-Theists, Implicit, Explicit or the Spiritual Atheist. Some possibilities to consider.”
Remember this? Assumptions and speculation about something you didn’t read. If you had actually read what was there, you would NEVER have said this. The very first position in the list IS a ‘strong atheist’, so if you DID even GLANCE at it, you failed to remember the very FIRST thing on the list. How could you have possibly done this if you had actually read it?
I’ll get to the iconoclast semantics in the next post.
on 08 Apr 2009 at 11:59 pm 10.Handle said …
Lou, this is the description from the website you posted.
These are idol-breakers. They would like to break the existing notion of belief in the God as preached by a certain religion or cult they are familiar with. They see a certain religion and its practices to be detrimental and hence they go about shattering those icons, those symbols, those houses of worship. Sometimes these iconoclasts tend to establish a different kind of ideology in the place of the idols they have fought. Certain Communists fall into this category. Karunanidhi and Periyar fall into this category to an extent. Adolf Hitler and Stalin could be grouped into this.”
So tell me, did you even bother to read this? How can you say that ONLY specific types of atheists do this? Notice that in the paragraph from the link that YOU provided that being an atheist is not a prerequisite for being an iconoclast. An iconoclast may be a Muslim who destroys Christian symbols or a Jew that destroys Wiccan symbols or an atheist who destroys all religious symbols. So please tell me how in the hell all iconoclasts can be classified as having the same beliefs about god.
on 09 Apr 2009 at 12:37 am 11.Lou said …
Won’t even bother with your first post. Been covered.
“How can you say that ONLY specific types of atheists do this?”
Lets keep this simple. Provide my quote. Specifically where I state only atheist. I think you are assuming again. I’ll respond if you have anything of substance.
on 09 Apr 2009 at 1:11 am 12.Handle said …
OK, lets keep it simple. Here is your source that iconoclasts are an atheist subtype. Notice the title on the front page of the source.
You say that iconoclasts can be classified as a religious position. You may not have SAID that iconoclasts are atheists, but you certainly IMPLIED it. Just reread your posts. Of course, I know how hard it is for you to read.
Also, whether I assumed or not is irrelevant to the point that I made in the post, which you did not even look at. If all iconoclasts have varying beliefs about gods and the supernatural, how can it be classified as a religious position? Why don’t you stop dodging the question?
You know things get bad when insults are being slung. It brings a wonderfully intelligent conversation to kindergarten babble. What good does it do to argue about pathetic minute details of our unbending beliefs that neither party cares about?? It is a certain kind of amusement I suppose.
on 09 Apr 2009 at 5:22 am 15.Steve said …
A religion can be just about anything you want it yo be.I watched two atheist on another blog argue to the point of blows on if a life-force existed or not,
Iconoclast can exist with any group. Whats the big issue. It is a lot like the word spiritual, That crosses different belief systems as well.
on 09 Apr 2009 at 11:25 am 16.Lou said …
Yes it can Steve. I believed Handel would of picked up on that.
Its my own fault. I should have informed Handel that I looked at other sources as well. I just didn’t think it was that monumental. He seems to use the amputee link as his final authority. I don’t consider the amputee links to be the final say in what is true and what is not. Eh, I grew up in a generation that read a lot.
on 09 Apr 2009 at 3:02 pm 17.Handle said …
Lou said: “Its my own fault. I should have informed Handel that I looked at other sources as well. I just didn’t think it was that monumental. He seems to use the amputee link as his final authority. I don’t consider the amputee links to be the final say in what is true and what is not. Eh, I grew up in a generation that read a lot.”
Look at how you assume multiple things about me in this paragraph, which you have done throughout all of your posts. Since you have repeatedly shown yourself to be a hypocrite and a liar I am done with you. You are not interested in a real conversation. You are only a troll.
I think you’re just using my name to try to make me look bad. Stop that!
on 09 Apr 2009 at 8:13 pm 21.Lou said …
Yeah, haven’t you heard of coincidences?
on 09 Apr 2009 at 10:17 pm 22.Hermes said …
Anonymous & Handle, thank you both for your comments in this thread. That Lou did not read the link I provided and jumped to conclusions is exactly the character flaw that Lou is famous for. That I did not have to point out this to him again — repeatedly — saved me quite a bit of time and for that I am appreciative. It is a shame that someone else was frustrated dealing with such willful ignorance.
Handle, thanks also for the link to “Types of atheists”. I’ll read it and see if there is anything that should be added to the poll I posted, or as a comment to the poll.
FWIW, two posts I made had some interesting details on the differences between gnostics and agnostics. Plus, the eye candy isn’t at all bad (if the sharp and sexy Laci fits your preference);