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: School Shootings - More Evidence of a Non-Existent Deity? [View all]Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)142. Spare us your sanctimony.
I sort myself as agnostic, and the idea of "not being committed" is far from ludicrous, lot's of us are not committed to lots of things. Does escargot taste good? I am not committed to yes or no, since I never ate them. Does intelligent life exist on other planets? I think probably yes, but I am not committed to that, there being no direct evidence of such. If the idea of "not being committed" sounds so ludicrous to you, I suggest you think long and hard about how many things you don't actually know about, or no very little about, therefore you are not "not committed" to a position on them. What is your position on who I should for court judge in the next election? i assume you are "not committed" since you don't know where I live and even if you did, you probably don't know anything about who is running for judge here. And if you are committed on that issue, please tell me who to vote for, because I sure don't know.
Not a particularly compelling analogy, as the choices are both concrete and evident. God claims are not, and there are literally thousands of analogous comparisons we could make there. Are you "committed" to not-believing in vampires? Are you committed to not-collecting stamps? Are you committed to not-communism?
"Broadly" is not the key word in the definition, the key word is "unknown." Atheists may claim to also be agnostic, because gods "may exist, but they don't believe in them," but if anything, that is the bullshit position. Because lots of atheists call religion "bullshit," "delusional," "nonsense," "lies," and so on. Sure, you hold the THEORETICAL possibility that gods may exist along with leprechauns and unicorns, but do you seriously believe there is a snowball's chance in hell that an actual leprechaun will ever be found? And I don't mean a short green Irishman, or a little humanoid living in the Andromeda Galaxy, or some future genetic engineered marvel. I mean the thing that we all always mean - the magic little creatures that is said to be living in Ireland since at least medieval times. You and I both KNOW there is no such creature, nor will any evidence of such a creature be found.
Let me see if I have this straight: Certainty is a load of bullshit, but agnostic atheists are disingenuous because you think God is more probable than leprechauns.
Well, alright. I think we're done here.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
148 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
It's a position held by deist philosophers - Newton and Descartes, for example.
The Velveteen Ocelot
May 2018
#4
Well usually leprechauns are tiny humanoid magic creatures dressed in green
marylandblue
May 2018
#122
Like I said, if you see this in black and white, you are not going to understand me
marylandblue
May 2018
#132
Well, if you're that sincerely committed to it, I'll concede the point.
Pope George Ringo II
May 2018
#133
Your assumption that "the supposed deity was either absent or doesn't exist in the first place."
Fullduplexxx
May 2018
#17
the all powerful god allowed these killings to happen. perhaps even planned them. nt
msongs
May 2018
#21
We will find a reason we are comfortable with and project it on our respective deities.
StTimofEdenRoc
May 2018
#51