[lobrobster]

That's still a choice. Somewhere along the line you made an affirmative decision that there is no compelling reason to believe in "an invisible bearded man living in the sky somewhere." The only one that might not be "belief" is the second one... where the subject has not made a specific decision one way or the other. That is agnosticism.

No offense, but you seem to have a propensity for nitpicking. Following your line of logic, the 2nd one is just as much of a belief as the others. You are making an affirmative choice to be non-committal. You have *decided* that you can't be sure. I mean, c'mon we can play this game all day long. But I'm sure you got the gist of what I meant the very first time you read it. Why be nitty about it?

I agree that you have the right to say whatever you wish about Bush the Elder... or anyone else. You can have any opinions you wish to have, and you may air those opinions in whatever form you wish.

But so does Bush.

I never said, nor did I imply, that he didn't have a right to say what he did. I just consider it *alarming* that he holds such a view.

I honestly can't tell if some of you guys really don't understand what is being said about censorship, or are just too stubborn to listen to what is actually being said.

[lobrobster]

I agree that you have the right to say whatever you wish about Bush the Elder... or anyone else. You can have any opinions you wish to have, and you may air those opinions in whatever form you wish.

Also... Even though I didn't mention it, I want you to know that your tactic here hasn't escaped me.

What you are doing with the above quote is trying to create a strawman. You are using my reaction to what Bush said and flipping it around. You *agree* that I have a right to say whatever I want?! Well gee, thanks... Since I'm not the one who made such an idiotic statement in the first place! I merely reacted to it.. . So I'm glad you *agree* that I have a right to respond to ex-presidents who make idiotic statements!

[ETWolverine]

Lob,

It would only be a strawman if you handn't made the same argument yourself. Since you did, it can't be a strawman. Strawman is a FAKE argument that one claims is used by one's opponent that is weak and easily dismissed, but which has never actually been used by said opponent. But if you actually made the same argument, and you did, then it isn't a strawman.

And yes, I have a habbit of flipping arguments on people, of holding up mirors to my opponents in an argument, and using that to make my point. What's wrong with that?

And yes, I'm a nitpicker. Comes from a background of being a Treker, a student of the Talmud and an analyst by training. But I wasn't nit-picking in my post to you above. That is a main point of contention between atheists and those who believe in G-d. It is hardly nit-picking to mention a central argument between our belief systems.

I'll admit that you may have a point regarding statement #2. That may be a conscious decision to not make a conscious decision. I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it. But there is no doubt that YOU have made a conscious decision not to believe in G-d because of your own belief system. And it IS a belief system. That's the point.

Elliot

[tomder55]

Elliot . You have come across the problem I had when I pretty much stopped debating atheism.

The way it was explained to me is that hard or strong Atheism is an outright disbelieve in God. But soft or weak atheism or non-theists straddles the fence between hard atheism and agnosticism ;that they choose instead to not take a position on the existence of God .

If I am not mistaken the distinction is a relatively recent development when religious people began to say that it takes as much "faith " as it were to believe something came from nothing .

[lobrobster]

ETWolverine,

Fair enough... But no matter what tricks you attempt with your mirrors, I never said ANYTHING condoning censorship! I never called for it. I never suggested it for Bush. Yet, you tried to make it look as though I did. In reality, I merely reacted to a comment that Bush made. That's all.

[lobrobster]

Elliot . you have come across the problem I had when I pretty much stopped debating atheism.

The way it was explained to me is that hard or strong Atheism is an outright disbelieve in God. But soft or weak atheism or non-theists straddles the fence between hard atheism and agnosticism ;that they choose instead to not take a position on the existence of God .

If I am not mistaken the distinction is a relatively recent development when religious people began to say that it takes as much "faith " as it were to believe something came from nothing .

I think you have it partially right in your last paragraph. The reason it gets confusing is that the term atheist really shouldn't even exist. We don't need a term for a non-astrologer, or a non-numerologist. We don't need a special name for someone who doesn't believe in witchcraft. To paraphrase a quote from Sam Harris:

-Atheism is simply the noise rational thinkers make in response to outrageous claims.

[Skell]

No offense, but you seem to have a propensity for nitpicking. .

Elliot nitpick and twist... Never!! :D (joke)