The Season of Winter Solstice

The Season of Winter Solstice.jpg

| Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Notify of
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    I’m an agnostic atheist, so even I call bull on the notion of *knowing* there are no gods, devils, angels, etc. I simply see no evidence of their existence, but I also see no evidence of their non-existence.

    tiki god

    but you can never prove a negative, right? you’d live your life exactly like an atheist, knowing that there’s no proof of anything supernatural out there that’s affecting your life.


    That’s why I’m an agnostic atheist. Since you can’t prove either the existence of god or the non-existence of god, it’s foolish to believe either.


    agnostic atheist is an oxymoron, do you even understand what either word means?


    atheism, disbelief in any deity, as in they don’t believe in Gods. regardless.

    agnosticism is basically fence sitting, maybe God does exist or maybe he doesn’t.

    You are either agnostic or you aren’t, and if your an atheist you don’t believe in god/’s full stop.

    Or have I missed a fundamental change in the meaning of these words?
    Was there a memo, and can some on cc me in?


    Atheism/theism is about belief.

    Gnosticism/agnosticism is about knowledge.

    If you don’t understand it by now, I guess written words are past your capacity. Which is, I guess, why you should not try to tell others definitions of words.


    Ah, yes, an obnoxious, dismissive, self-righteous and judgmental tirade masquerading as polite seasonal greeting. Yeah, that should totally stump them stupid religious types and get them around to your way of thinking. Gits.


    I’ll pray for you, Silverwolf.


    I see what you did there.


    But seriously, Silverwolf, you don’t understand the context of this sign.

    It *is* there to annoy religious types. Why? Because it’s there to get Christian symbols off of state-owned land.

    This season’s greeting is not there to make religious types think, that would require a miracle.


    Oh, I’m well aware of the context behind this, my dear Korinthian, I just really dislike its dismissive, haughty tone, and find it no more palatable than a zealot preaching hellfire and brimstone. I understand that some people feel the need to defend their own belief system (be it secular or religious) by attacking their oppsoite numbers, but I’d rather live and let live, because, as you pointed out, challenign centuries-old religious beliefs is almost always an excercise in futility, and is akin to poking a bear with a stick. I don’t know about you, but I have an aversion… Read more »


    You do understand why I was under the impression that the context escaped you, I’m sure.

    Some people just lie down and give up, other recognize that there has been great wins for secularism (in the US) the last few years. So you’re plain wrong about the futility of going against religion.

    You live and let live, except when people attack religion?


    Apparently, what we have here is failure to communicate. The point I was trying to get across (and failing miserably, it seems) is I don’t think that antagonzing the other side of an argument (regarldess of who or what that side is) is the right way to promote any viewpoint or cause. Flies, honey, vinegar, and all that.

    Then again, looking back, I obviously failed to get my point across, and was hostile in my own original comment, so my criticism of the wording used in this image has become null and void. I acknowledge my failure, my dear sir.


    No worries.


    I’m an atheist and I approve this message.
    What’s the source of almost every conflict? Religion.


    What about communism? It’s anti-religious and responsible for the deaths of millions? At the end of the day it’s ideologies, be it religion, communism, feminism, etc, that are the problem.


    Yup. Most “athiests” merely displace their religious energy into something else – usually the State.


    I think you mean video games and hobbies and not “the State”.


    Someone who is Agnostic lacks empirical evidence to prove the existence or lack of a God/Gods, and thus exists in a kind of religious schrodinger’s cat state, until the evidence is presented either way in which case the wave form will collapse and they will be either a theist or an atheist.

    An atheist doesn’t have to worry about all this and can quite happily not believe in god/gods regardless.

    There are plenty of people that don’t believe in proven facts. (Looks at the religious)

    Which is why the statement of being an agnostic atheist is an oxymoron


    This guy is not aware that words can have multiple meanings.

    Not an oxymoron, just another moron.


    I feel the same way about unicorns…….


    Ahh the straw man has appeared. Welcome.
    Nice riposte, I was hoping to have an intelligent discussion but apparently that’s not to be.

    Youre usually better than this Korinthian.


    Is that you saying that words can’t have multiple meanings? Are you saying words don’t change past their initial definition?

    I’m not saying your definition of “agnostic” is wrong, but I’m saying it’s wrong in the context of putting it before “atheist”.

    Did you also not know the meaning of a word can change depending on its place in a sentence?

    I can’t comment on how you have discussed things before, because I don’t recognize you, but this can’t be one of your high points.


    You be trollin