NarutoActor

I'd rather not :x

Well I can get manaical at some times. And boy they are not pretty. Once it involved the goddamn police.

So that answer your question? Heh

No, why?

I changed it to 'Gun Ownership rights' because A, it is a more apt discussion title and B, it was better sounding.

I changed it to just "Firearms". :]

If you say so.

Are you really insisting on dismissing all hypothetical analogies on the basis of "it didn't actually happen so therefore it can't be used in an argument"?

That has no relation to my argument whatsoever.

Okay the sentence "you have to make a conjection my the presence of something" makes no sense. Conjection isn't even a word, so I'm really, really not sure what you're trying to say here, lol. Makes it impossible to reply to your argument because it obscures the point you're making - why is the analogy faulty? It follows the same logic. If atheism is a 'faith', since you can't prove that God doesn't exist, then not believing in tiny invisible purple unicorns are a 'faith' since you can't prove that they don't exist. If your logic can be easily applied to something so ridiculous, then either the analogy is faulty or your logic is faulty. You really can't just say "what you said seems ridiculous so I'm dismissing it".

To be fair, I played around for a long time with the idea that atheism is faith too but I ended up dismissing it for this exact reason.

You write: "In which you begin to cleaim that I am clearly wrong, and that plato's theories support subjected morallity, when in reality plato's theories where the bases for objective morallity all through out history."

To quote my VM: "And further, it's improper of you to appropriate Plato's theory on the nature of truth (i.e. that it is extant, absolute, and not subject to or determined by the moral claims of men)." Nowhere did I claim that it is Plato's position that morality is "subjected" (I believe you mean subjective). In fact, I described it as "extant, absolute and NOT subject to or determined by the moral claims of men."

Your (frankly, very silly) opinion that atheism and agnosticism are religions is not "the truth" as Plato conceives of it. Plato has a very specific idea of what the (singular) absolute and objective truth of being and reality is, and that is the Form of the Good.

Religion is a set of beliefs based on faith. Atheism and agnosticism are not. Atheism rejects the very notion of faith and claims as truth only that which is experientially verifiable, and agnosticism refuses to take a stance on faith, one way or another, out of lack of surety. Thus, neither of them are based on faith. They are not religions.

And finally, your claim that it is my position that "deviations are not permitted" is ludicrous. These terms - religion, atheism, and agnosticism - weren't created by me, but rather by all of humanity as an expression of our linguistic ability, to refer to commonly held ideas or notions. It's not as if I've personaly told you that you can't deviate - rather, all of the English speaking world commands you to use words in a manner consistent with their proper, commonly held definitions!

You can call an apple an orange, if you like, but it doesn't make you right, and you don't hold an acceptable alternative position - in fact, it makes you quite wrong, and the vast majority of speakers of English would freely tell you so. In the same way, you can call atheism a religion, if you like, but you are objectively wrong to do so.