|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Apatheism
|
This Atheism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
| ||||
Sorry[edit]
Sorry 'bout the rewrite, but the original version completely missed the point of apatheism. It is not a "subset of atheism", in fact, it is directly opposed to it: whereas atheism exists in opposition to theism, apatheists aren't even interested joining the fight, and view the whole discussion as pointless and entirely academic. 
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:27, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
- Yeah, I was actually thinking the same thing. Props for the rewrite. Jsonasarav 06:41, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
- Thank you. I'm glad to see you approve of it—I was afraid others would object to it. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:43, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
- Question, by definition as a group, are these generally people who are apathatic because they are just too busy to be bothered; or is this the definition for people who argue that they very defintion as "atheist" buys into the duality of "there is or is not a god" and gives more creedance to the whole "theist" thing? I've heard the latter argument when stating things like "why would i call myself an atheist, when I do not call myself a a-atlantist, or an a-dragonist." thanks.--Waiting for Godot 13:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- Don't forget the people who view the very logic used in the debate as abstract and meaningless ("My hypothetical beats your hypothetical!"). And certainly there are others who feel that the debate is a phenomenal waste of time, which could be spent doing things that can actually make a difference. Really, the definition is rather flexible, so it can apply to a broad range of people, any of whom may approach it from a different angle. (Oh no, diversity! The death of all labels!) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:00, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well, I'm an avowed atheist, but I don't want to argue at length about it either, since I see it as a waste of time. ħuman
20:13, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- Well, I'm an avowed atheist, but I don't want to argue at length about it either, since I see it as a waste of time. ħuman
- Don't forget the people who view the very logic used in the debate as abstract and meaningless ("My hypothetical beats your hypothetical!"). And certainly there are others who feel that the debate is a phenomenal waste of time, which could be spent doing things that can actually make a difference. Really, the definition is rather flexible, so it can apply to a broad range of people, any of whom may approach it from a different angle. (Oh no, diversity! The death of all labels!)
- Question, by definition as a group, are these generally people who are apathatic because they are just too busy to be bothered; or is this the definition for people who argue that they very defintion as "atheist" buys into the duality of "there is or is not a god" and gives more creedance to the whole "theist" thing? I've heard the latter argument when stating things like "why would i call myself an atheist, when I do not call myself a a-atlantist, or an a-dragonist." thanks.--Waiting for Godot 13:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
- Thank you. I'm glad to see you approve of it—I was afraid others would object to it.
A joke shamelessly stolen from a forum thread that no longer appears to exist[edit]
A theist, an atheist, an agnostic and an apatheist die. They meet in the afterlife and enter a bar. The bartender turns out to be God.
The theist says: "I knew it!"
The atheist says: "I was wrong. Drat."
The agnostic says: "Now I know."
The apatheist orders a beer.--87.164.50.153 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, nice! It's funny and I find no fault in it. Maybe it should be used to give the article itself a little more oomph, but I'm glad it's at least preserved in the talk page. Nullahnung (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
about the criticism[edit]
From an agnostic viewpoint: Even if the God(s) DO intervene, there is no way to know *what* the God(s) will do or even what the God(s) will *likely* do.— Unsigned, by: 84.241.215.186 / talk / contribs
- Or if it's even gods and not some assholes pretending to be gods like in Stargate or some such shit.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 15:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 15:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)