194
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by TankieTanuki@hexbear.net to c/the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net

He saw something vaguely Muslim inside HIS imperial core and his monocle popped off so now he's on team (White) Jesus.

Shitter Link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

What do you even mean, my point is that Dawkins is taken by libs as paragon of atheism but he's not even an atheist, his book reeks of spiritual search and neophyte zeal typical of agnostics in the process of finding his new opium (and that Norton is 100% correct here)

[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 17 points 5 months ago

no part of being atheist or theist requires thinking you have knowledge. If you're using the god delusion to say dawkins doesn't count as an atheist, you're saying there are no atheists at all because none of us have the hubris to claim we know for sure.

there are gnostic and agnostic theists, there are agnostic atheists, and out of all the people who have ever lived you could probably fit the gnostic atheists on a single bus.

[-] Mardoniush@hexbear.net 15 points 5 months ago

Imagining a Gnostic Atheist that denies the existence of god but admits the Demiurge does exist.

[-] TheDoctor@hexbear.net 6 points 5 months ago

I know several Christian atheists. They study the Bible as a work of fiction and participate in Christian ceremonies and gatherings. They just don’t believe god literally exists.

[-] Big_Bob@hexbear.net 6 points 5 months ago
[-] TheDoctor@hexbear.net 3 points 5 months ago

Lol it sounds similar, yeah. They’re into Jesus in the same way I’m into Sonic

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 15 points 5 months ago

Ah you're going into the extremely specific definition route, fair enough.

[-] Angel@hexbear.net 14 points 5 months ago

I think, in the context of arguing a point along the lines of "This person is actually Y, not X!", it makes a fair amount of sense to nitpick about definitions, especially if your claim lies in assuming that Y and X are mutually exclusive.

[-] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

you're the one who brought up the guy's book where he literally talks about this. there's a seven-(for some reason) point scale and everything.

this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
194 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15863 readers
595 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS