the_dunk_tank
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 [email protected]
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
view the rest of the comments
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)
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.
Ah you're going into the extremely specific definition route, fair enough.
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.
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.
Imagining a Gnostic Atheist that denies the existence of god but admits the Demiurge does exist.
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.
So, basically a fanclub?
Lol it sounds similar, yeah. They’re into Jesus in the same way I’m into Sonic