Oh, I concur. But, as I've stated before in similar topics, the existence of bronies has been discussed ad nauseam and really shouldn't surprise anyone anymore. If you would like to learn more about it, I could give you a link to a fantastic fan made documentary discussing the origins as well as the influences of the show and the fandom.
I just ignore it. I know this isn't the route most people would take, but if my parents are happy being religious, then who am I to shake their faith? Ignorance is bliss and as they get older and sicker, I want them to be happy in their beliefs of after-life. I don't live at home and when I am, I just go to church to make them happy and almost as a tradition. I see a lot of my k-12 friends there.
I feel like I have more capacity to realize my own potential now. It's strange how much of your perfectly good brain goes to waste on worrying about religion or the "afterlife". I'm happy to be living a rational life.
Not to start a war, he said...
When has religion ever started a war, let alone a conflict!?
Well, I was about to ask if you would share what your beliefs were, but...there we have it!
What do you expect when your morality is based on tribal justice written by half illiterate desert dwellers?
"Morality comes from God(the Bible)" Who wrote the Bible? Half literate desert dwellers.
This begs the question (literally, not the fallacy), what do you think of those who see illusions or have hallucinations? Do you see them as equally valid world views? Like, auditory or visual hallucinations of a schizophrenic.
Not true at all. The vast majority of atheists I've ever met have been agnostic atheists, never claiming "proof" of anything.
It's a jab at Islam, Judaism and Christianity. They all three claim that their holy books are the only sources of morality. But this is false as secular people often live more morally than do fundamentalists who shun people because of their skin color, their sexual orientations, their personal beliefs and things about them they cannot change.
I was referencing atheism, not agnostic atheism. The two certainly are distinct.
Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible and was raised in the house of Pharaoh. Thus, he was probably one of the most educated people on the planet at the time.
It's called academic discourse, and happens ALL the time. Some of us prefer a solid base of evidence...
Yes, the purported solidity of that base vs. the base of religious viewpoints is why threads like this exist.
They are not distinct; agnostic atheism is a subset of atheism that contains almost every atheist I've ever met or even heard of (including the most vocal atheists like Dawkins, Dillahunty, etc.). It contains everyone that says "I lack a belief in gods, but I don't claim to 'know' this with gnostic, 100% certainty." I know a TON of atheists, and they're literally all agnostic atheists. I have talked to one or two gnostic atheists on the internet, total. They are extremely, extremely rare.
Why are you thinking the two are mutually exclusive? One is a knowledge claim and one is a belief. Most every agnostic atheist I've ever met first and foremost refers to himself as "atheist."
I agree agnosticism and atheism are commonly misused; especially by those who technically align themselves as agnostic atheists. However, agnostic atheism is generally held as more extreme viewpoint under agnosticism not atheism.
My understanding has been different. I think I have exactly one agnostic atheist friend who, in a word, would say she is an "agnostic." Everyone else I know says "atheist." It doesn't seem to make sense to have atheism be the "extreme" form of agnosticism because theism *also* then would fall under agnosticism. Unless theism is considered at least as extreme, since that's a positive claim as opposed to the rejection of claims.
No, they aren't. Only agnosticism is a knowledge claim. Atheism is an opinion; agnosticism is a claim about whether or not the answer to that question is actually knowable.
No they're not. They're both differing philosophical view points. This is blunt (I'm tired, it's late, and have to move in 8 hours), so I apologize in advance, but please do some research on the topics, and don't try to generalize what you read to fit a preconceived schema.
Anyhoo, I've got to get to bed.
Did some quick Googling; here's an old post that explains and dissects it well, and includes some problems with these labels. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camels...-the-atheist-gnostic-and-the-theist-agnostic/
Night!
It's debatable that he even existed, much less that he wrote those books.
Could be. With his or her gender not readily apparent, I chose to use the female pronoun. Plus, to me, the profile pic is feminine.
