person who chooses to affirm the statement “There are no gods” as true
By way of attempting to articulate the difference between atheism and agnosticism, he brilliantly used the old ducks in a box trick. Here’s the bottom line from his post.
Agnostic: “you think it MAY be true…”
Atheist: “There are no ducks in that box.”
rentafriend2000 is frustrated with atheists, and the following demonstrates his mindset well.
He’s very certain. You know how Carl can be when he’s made up his mind about something. Even if he SAW ducks wearing party hats, he’d try and argue that they were actually doves or quail or something. Carl can be kind of stubborn
I took him to task for his definition in terms even he should be able to comprehend.
Your description of athiesm is incorrect. Using your ducks, I hold no belief regarding ducks in the box. Further, I hold no interest in the contents of the box. That’s completely different than an affirmation there are no ducks in the box
Simple, right? I enjoyed his response. Apologies for quoting drivel, but I wish preserve the depths of ignorance and lack of intellectual acuity of the thinking theist.
rentafriend2000 on July 22, 2014 at 12:48 am
Thanks for your comment. Your statement is almost correct, except that you reject my definition of Atheism. My definition is correct, and you’ll note that you make no attempt to defend your rejection of it. If you want to change the definition so it means no belief, or no interest, then my shoe is an atheist. That not only rejects the root of the word, and the way it’s always been used but makes the word useless. Words mean things. If you don’t like what they mean, then find other words to use, but you aren’t Mr Webster and I suspect he would be upset if he found you were trying to do his job. Old man Webster was a stickler that way, but it does help when we’re trying to communicate with other English speaking people.
Where to begin. I’m almost correct, except that I reject his definition. Huh? WTF? Of course I do.
His definition is correct. Didn’t the bible say something like “foolish is he whose confidence is born of stupidity and bolstered by arrogance”? No? Right, it’s me that says that.
Then there’s my favorite, and the single idiotic point to which I responded. My definition of atheism requires his shoe be an atheist. OTG.
My reply was never published.
Good god, your shoe is not a sentient being. Look me up when it is.
rentafriend2000, you’re a coward. Your intellectual ineptitude is easier improved that your cowardice. I wish you well in both.