Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
I feel that remark is condescending. Translation: We're in a special club that has removed the intellectual fetters of false spiritual desire, leaving those with overly-emotionally muddled psychobabble to scratch in the dirt like self-shitting chickens. Look how they play with the shadows!!! It's probably also because I've watched you post for a long time, and as I said, you have a way with words. When you were talking with will about the Mac vs. MS stuff, and you basically pulled the classic " I don't mean to offend you, but you're an idiot" routine. Putting it all in context with the style you typically adopt, I interpreted the above as a little condescending. If you didn't intend it that way, then well, there you go.
|
I see... Here is the context for which that was said:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ustwo
Before one attempts to ‘convert’ the world to atheism, you need to ask yourself what good will come of it? Its nice to think that the world will be suddenly enlightened, and religious violence and intolerance will be a thing of the past, but lets look at those who advocate promoting ‘New Atheism’. I’m not talking about looking at their character or what not, but their intelligence. As a rule we are talking about people in the top few % of intelligence who seem to be able to grasp the concept that not only is there no god, but that you don’t NEED a god to be a human, to have a purpose in life.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I don't think he meant, literally, monkeys. I think he was just saying that he doesn't want to know that evolution is how we came about and that he needs his religion. You, more than anyone else in this thread, understand how much some people need their religion...
|
Please note that I was responding specifically to
ustwo when I wrote that. I was merely using one of his beliefs to emphasize my point to him. What you interpret as condescending was
ustwo's opinion and not mine! If you want to complain about condescension then you can go complain him. I assure you, he's quite used to it...
Furthermore, let me show you what my point was!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by florida0214
I don't want to know that I cam from some monkey. If we did why are there still monkeys. I don't understand this.
Anyway thought I would throw that out there.
|
He's not saying that he knows we didn't come from monkeys. He's not saying that he doesn't want to hear that we came from monkeys. He's saying that he doesn't
want to know
that we came from monkeys. He's saying that, even if it were true, he doesn't want to know about it! What you interpret as "condescending" is me bridging communication by pointing out to people what they have said...
I like that you remember reading some of my other posts.
What you're doing is interpreting any disagreement as an "I don't mean to offend you but you're an idiot routine." Nothing I had said in that or any other thread, including this one, was ever pejorative. I merely disagreed and pointed out his mistakes. This is not me telling anyone they're an idiot, figuratively or otherwise. Why would you hold such a belligerent view on disagreement?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
Re: agnostic vs. awful and awesome. That's true. However, a-blah usually means "not blah." I'm not arguing your definition of gnostic isn't valid, correct, and well substantiated. All I'm saying is that I recall seeing a more general definition elsewhere, which was general like the term "agnostic." I haven't been able to find a reference, so I didn't post about it. However, as I found myself back in the thread, I felt that I would address it.
|
First, lets get one thing straight. It's not
my definition I gave you, it was
Webster's. I have never used the word in my life and, thus, have no personal opinion on its meaning. I was merely explaining to you why I couldn't help you with your definitions...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
I don't think there are two teams to this thing, outside of the obvious context of the New Atheists vs. Theists Believers that has been set up in the OP. I'm really not sure what you mean. I was setting up a simple binary definition based on what I've read elsewhere.
|
I said that because you said "As far as the gnosticism thing goes, I actually pulled those definitions from an atheist website a long time ago" as if it were somehow relevant. Why would you bring such particular attention to the idea that it was from an atheist website? It looks as if you're trying to make youself look credible (I never doubted you since there really wasn't anything to doubt) by claiming that this definition is an atheist one as if we all belong to a club and should agree on our own doctorine or protocol. Atheism is not an organization of any kind...