Agnostic.com

7 24

And for those Agnostic dot com members that are still "on the fence"...this will surely make you get off it.

Bill Maher (the original anti -#Religulous) pokes fun at SCOTUS member Amy Coney Barrett...try not to laugh too hard...

Robecology 9 Nov 2
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

7 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Let me respond in general about the term "fence sitter"

#1. I won't respond specifically to name callers like @Paddypereira and if you continue the rude path you'll be blocked.

#2. As you see in the comments below - there's many who are still "believers" - I consider those who still "have faith" in a god to be "fence sitters"

#3 Bill Maher is my favorite blunt, in-your-face anti-religion spokesperson for me.

If you want to debate...bring facts...not name calling or ad hominem attacks. Otherwise you'll not only be ignored, you'll be blocked.

Good reply. Now I understand what you mean.

0

Well, first explain what you mean by "members who are still on the fence". If you mean by that the agnostic people, believe me, there's nothing of being still on the fence for being agnostic. I don't believe in God but I don't take this belief as fact. If that's being on the fence for you, you're being ignorant. I'm talking for myself, of course. I would like first to hear your explanation so I can make my own conclusion.

0

Oh, of course you need to bash one group to reaffirm yourself.
Why do you think agnostic are fence sitters? Do you really only see the world over a belief basis? I have to believe in no god otherwise I am over the fence?
Agnostic is not about believing. My belief is irrelevant. Agnosticism is about what I know, and I will act over what I know, not about what I believe.
And for concepts that are by definition impossible to know about (because they are not falsifiable) I don't even care because they are useless concepts.
While you need to struggle with believing or not, the agnostic argument is that even deciding about belief is useless. I can create infinite non falsifiable concepts about gods, life and anything else. Te answer for all of those concepts are the same, they don't matter because they have no practical purpose. Believing or not on them should not be relevant as it should not dictate my actions.
You think we need to decide, I say, I don't need to decide over something that is irrelevant and should not even be asked in the first place.

2

Funny and right

1

I don’t believe in god but also don’t appreciate the assumption that people on Agnostic.com must be atheist. If you hate differences in belief, go to the American Atheist website.

UUNJ Level 8 Nov 2, 2020

There's no "assumption"...I was just offering some interesting stuff. No "hate"here...take that chip off your shoulder...Pick where you fit....

@Robecology I don’t have a chip on my shoulder. I am, however, weary of so many people here assuming we all identify as atheists.

5

Though I'm 100% atheist I take issue with "fence sitters". First, it's a derogatory term used to shame agnostics, which I find objectionable behavior. Stop shaming something just because it's different. Save that shaming for horrible things. Secondly, so what if they aren't atheists... they are in the reason side of secular and humanism and that is a benefit not a detractor.

Leave the "eating their own" to the religibots. It hurts our secular community to to dismiss them in such a way.

Yes, Bill is funny and he's just as funny without dissing our other secular friends.

Leelu Level 7 Nov 2, 2020

@Leelu You can't "shame" anyone...shame defines a reaction, not a cause.

I "fence-sit" on a lot of issues...and t don't feel shamed by my position. Nor "dissed". Nor derogated.

If you feel "shame" then you need to examine why within yourself.

Ain't nothin' wrong with "fence sitting".

As I said; Bill's an "in-your-face" protagonist/champion for the agnostic/atheist strategy.

He doesn't care if you feel "shamed" and again...it's not his fault or mine that you do feel it's derogatory or shaming.

If you feel shame - don't comment. Think about why you feel shame. Then try to get over it.

You have every right to be on a sliding scale toward agnosticism or atheism.

I was a "fence-sitter for many years...perhaps decades....on the validity of religion...on whether God might be real or not.

I felt no shame for that position.

Now that I'm solidly agnostic - I still feel no shame. Neither should you. If you do...move along.

@Robecology Wow, you didn't read or comprehend most of my post. Are you ? Your word salad is bizarre.

0

Why did the democrats allow her to be confirmed?

They didn't "allow" anything. They were not in power to stop it.

@Leelu

They have the house

@Zoltans_Queen The House doesn't make that decision, Congress does and Congress is majority GOP.

The Senate is a solid GOP under Mitch McConnell. Trump can damned near do anything he wants to do.

so next time the GOP will allow the Dem nomination, "scratch my back.............."

@powder Nope. The GOP blocked Obama’s nominee for 6 months, paving the way for Trump to install Kavanugh.

Thanks for the clear info, we need to spread as much factual detail as possible!

@Leelu

The GOP controls the senate but the house can do things which will force the senate put off other business, an impeachment for example.

They could have tried to delay the confirmation until after the election when, hopefully, the senate would be controlled by dems and president Biden could nominate someone else.

Too late now.

@powder

I don't think the republicans will do any scratching. It seems to always go the other way.

@Zoltans_Queen No they couldn't or they would have.

@Leelu

Why couldn't they?

Pelosi is Speaker. She has control.

@Zoltans_Queen

That's true. Pelosi has the power to delay the senate. She had options.

@RoboGraham the dems boycotted the vote, thus no quorum, supposed required for vote, my understanding is they changed the rules and voted anyway. Don’t think Pelosi and the house could interfere

@Canndue

Pelosi could have stopped the vote form taking place by sending impeachment articles over to the senate. The senate would have had to deal with that before moving forward on other business, like confirming a justice. This could have delayed the vote until after, hopefully, the dems get a majority.

Apparently, there was also an option to shut government down so the senate would not be able to meet for official business because the house controls funding the government but I'm not sure how that would have worked or if it was actually possible.

All I know is, Pelosi kept talking about all of these arrows she has in her quiver but she used none of them.

@RoboGraham I certainly don’t know all the rules in congress. Why do you feel the dems neglected to stop it?

@Canndue

Maybe they thought the political price would be too high. They don't want to risk a bold move right before the election.

I wish they would play hard ball more like the republicans do. McConnell held up Obama's nominee for nearly a year, I wish Pelosi had tried to hold up Trump's pick for a few months.

@RoboGraham totally agree with you.

@RoboGraham

Hopefully they will be more bold after the blue wave hits DC tonight. 😁

@Zoltans_Queen

Doubtful, but yeah, hopefully.

@Zoltans_Queen Don't you remember Mitch was hinting at the fact that he did not need to actually have the trial in the Senate? The only reason he did was because he knew he had the votes to win which would only strengthen their position.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:548995
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.