Theist or Atheist

[verlox2]

So? What are you?

I'm a theist myself.

[Scully]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Close thread!

[verlox2]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Close thread!

These are the most fun threads, though. You know that.

[Caffy]

Why God? WHY?

[Gloomrender]

This should be considered trolling.

Oh and I voted theist just for the lol factor.

[Aragoni]

God is dead.

[palo god]

Where is the agnostic option?

[Gloomrender]

Where is the agnostic option?

Agnostics are either closet Atheists who aren't trying hard enough, or closet Theists with some amount of doubt.

[Beeblebrox]

I think the universe is god. And he doesn't know it yet.

[verlox2]

Why God? WHY?

Because I'm the Devil.

[Crying Hyena]

You forgot agnostic and deist in the poll.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzBE3LNmKK8

[Miira]

Agnostic

[Strangia]

I believe in DNF

[Spankytwo]

So? What are you?

I'm a theist myself.

So did your parents find out about your condition early on, or was it in your later years that you were finally diagnosed?

[DocGonzo]

Agnostics are either closet Atheists who aren't trying hard enough, or closet Theists with some amount of doubt.

actually, i think you would find that agnostics are the honest ones who say "fuck if i know"

anyone who claims anything metaphysical as a matter of certainty is either self deluded or just plain simple minded

oh yes, and poll fails for lack of bewbz option

[Spankytwo]

actually, i think you would find that agnostics are the honest ones who say "fuck if i know"

anyone who claims anything metaphysical as a matter of certainty is either self deluded or just plain simple minded

oh yes, and poll fails for lack of bewbz option

The one thing that pisses me off more then an ignorant theist is a self righteous, circle jerking agnostic.

I cant prove or disprove that magical fairies that live in my garden, should we just be agnostic about them too?

[seRJ]

There is no evidence God exists, but there is evidence that God doesn't exist. Evidence such as genocide, war, disease, famine, terrorism, organized religion, george bush, and the US goverment..It's a pretty bad argument too, but its better then theres a invisible man in the sky theory..OR you can just believe in God and he exists right?? Atleast just for you; just like how a young child believes he has invisible/make believe friends...

[Strangia]

There is no evidence God exists, but there is evidence that God doesn't exist. Evidence such as genocide, war, disease, famine, terrorism, organized religion, george bush, and the US goverment..It's a pretty bad argument too, but its better then theres a invisible man in the sky theory..OR you can just believe in God and he exists right?? Atleast just for you; just like how a young child believes he has invisible/make believe friends...

This idea is new and inventive, I have never heard such arguments before, and this post truly changed my life, thank you.

[[O]_Fawkes]

Care Cup.

\_/

Neither, really, but since the definition of Theism is a little more flexible than Atheism, and the fact that I'm neither, I voted for Theist.

[seRJ]

This idea is new and inventive, I have never heard such arguments before, and this post truly changed my life, thank you.

Sarcasm is fun isn't it? but sarcasm aside...yes, that is a basic philisophical argument for the athiest.

[Strangia]

Sarcasm is fun isn't it? but sarcasm aside...yes, that is a basic philisophical argument for the athiest.

Really? No way! I have never seen this argument on these forums. Your contribution is truly original; not a single platitude to be found.

[DocGonzo]

The one thing that pisses me off more then an ignorant theist is a self righteous, circle jerking agnostic.

I cant prove or disprove that magical fairies that live in my garden, should we just be agnostic about them too?

awww...didums lil bwain get hurt?

bring me a dead fairy and i'll believe in them after the autopsy and some tests

comb all dimension in the multiverse and not find anything resembling the description of one and i'll say they don't exist

fair enough?

[Bosemann]

Agnostics are either closet Atheists who aren't trying hard enough, or closet Theists with some amount of doubt.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist :p

[verlox2]

There is no evidence God exists, but there is evidence that God doesn't exist. Evidence such as genocide, war, disease, famine, terrorism, organized religion, george bush, and the US goverment..It's a pretty bad argument too, but its better then theres a invisible man in the sky theory..OR you can just believe in God and he exists right?? Atleast just for you; just like how a young child believes he has invisible/make believe friends...

That really just attempts to prove that the Christian interpretation is wrong.

[Gloomrender]

I consider myself an agnostic atheist :p

So you believe that god is unknowable, but at the same time don't believe he exists? Isn't that a knowledge claim? Seems contradictory. I'd just call you an atheist trying to make a euphemism of his position, like every other "agnostic atheist".

actually, i think you would find that agnostics are the honest ones who say "fuck if i know"

anyone who claims anything metaphysical as a matter of certainty is either self deluded or just plain simple minded

Atheism greatly involves utilizing the physical as evidence for the metaphysical. As I said, agnostics don't try hard enough. And then like you, they act like they know better, because they didn't try hard enough. That's "simple-minded", my egotistically metaphysical friend.

[DocGonzo]

That really just attempts to prove that the Christian interpretation is wrong.

as in a bad paraphrasing of the Epicurian argument concerning the contradiction between omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent?

[DocGonzo]

Atheism greatly involves utilizing the physical for the metaphysical. As I said, agnostics don't try hard enough. And then like you they act like they know better because they didn't try hard enough. That's simple minded, my egotistically metaphysical friend.

if stating i don't know is simple minded, then sign me up

i'm the kind who would much rather admit to being ignorant than pretending to know something definitively without adequate proof of the fact...

as opposed to a "belief" that is unproven, or unprovable

so, who is more in error...those who assert to know the unknowable...or the person who freely admits they don't know?

now, siddown on that end of the log, i like this side

[[O]_Fawkes]

Really? No way! I have never seen this argument on these forums. Your contribution is truly original; not a single platitude to be found.

ORLY? (http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc155/Rob1817/owl1.jpg?t=1246077928)

[Gloomrender]

if stating i don't know is simple minded, then sign me up

i'm the kind who would much rather admit to being ignorant than pretending to know something definitively without adequate proof of the fact...

as opposed to a "belief" that is unproven, or unprovable

so, who is more in error...those who assert to know the unknowable...or the person who freely admits they don't know?

now, siddown on that end of the log, i like this side

You're just proving exactly what I said..that you're not taking all the steps you could be taking, like a typical lazy agnostic. You put on metaphysical blinders, and don't see the physical+metaphysical side of it, that makes any sensible person an atheist. Your metaphysical distinction is hollow in the scope of reality, reason, logic, and evidence all combined. Maybe one day you will grow up a few more inches philosophically and join the sane world of Atheism. Until then you're nothing but a lazy mind runt to me.

[seRJ]

as in a bad paraphrasing of the Epicurian argument concerning the contradiction between omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent?

True, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of the christian population holds those traits to be true...

[DocGonzo]

You're just proving exactly what I said..that you're not taking all the steps you could be taking, like a typical lazy agnostic. You put on metaphysical blinders, and don't see the physical+metaphysical side of it, that makes any sensible person an atheist. Your metaphysical distinction is hollow in the scope of reality, reason, logic, and evidence all combined. Maybe one day you will grow up a few more inches philosophically and join the sane world of Atheism. Until then you're nothing but a lazy mind runt to me.

o'rly?

you make these claims...so do ...enlighten me...show me your proof

if not, you are talking out of your anal orifice like any "believer" who takes something on Faith

if you have facts i am unaware of, i am very interested...up until this point, i have seen absolutely zero facts one way or another...so until presented with something verifiable i'll stick with the only honest answer i have..."fuck if i know"

you making these assertions with nothing to support them is sophistry at best, but you knew that...

[Gloomrender]

o'rly?

you make these claims...so do ...enlighten me...show me your proof

if not, you are talking out of your anal orifice like any "believer" who takes something on Faith

if you have facts i am unaware of, i am very interested...up until this point, i have seen absolutely zero facts one way or another...so until presented with something verifiable i'll stick with the only honest answer i have..."fuck if i know"

you making these assertions with nothing to support them is sophistry at best, but you knew that...


Sophistry is pretending that only the metaphysical distinctions of what is knowable actually matter, while there have been countless rational, logical, and empirical proofs against theistic notions of all kinds. The entire concept of, for example the Christian notion of god, is riddled with so many holes that I would have to dedicate far more time than I owe a petulant little mind runt like you to even begin to adequately (and fairly) communicate them.

However wikipedia has a decent little booster pack you could use to get started with in regards to that one religion in particular, and you're welcome to whine and gloat all you wish that this isn't a direct physical refutation of god, because I never claimed to have that, and nobody truly intelligent enough to be an Atheist needs exactly that anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible

That's pretty much all I feel like saying in these threads anymore. I've gone and earned the ability after so many years of thinking to not need to explain every last thing I believe to anyone with a differing mindset.

[DocGonzo]

Sophistry is pretending that only the metaphysical distinctions of what is knowable actually matter, while there have been countless rational, logical, and empirical proofs against theistic notions of all kinds. The entire concept of, for example the Christian notion of god, is riddled with so many holes that I would have to dedicate far more time than I owe a petulant little mind runt like you to even begin to adequately (and fairly) communicate them.

However wikipedia has a decent little booster pack you could use to get started with in regards to that one religion in particular, and you're welcome to whine and gloat all you wish that this isn't a direct physical refutation of god, because I never claimed to have that, and nobody truly intelligent enough to be an Atheist needs exactly that anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible

That's pretty much all I feel like saying in these threads anymore. I've gone and earned the ability after so many years of thinking to not need to explain every last thing I believe to anyone with a differing mindset.

whoah here...are you stipulating only the possibility of contemporary christian version of a thing called a "god"?

there i can easily agree, i don't think such exists...i guess you weren't aware that my "Doc" is from theology (some study also in comparative mythology and cultural anthropology), but i make my living as an electronics systemic diagnostician for the last 6 years or so

so, i am well aware of the inconsistencies of christian mythology, spare me your indignation

as for any "empirical proof" against any possibility of a theistic bent...do please link me ONE...i can use the laugh

however, if it is an actual proof...and not just suppositional evidence...i'm happy to look at it and such would indeed change my thinking in the same way that dead fairy under an autopsy would

i might eventually check out your wikipedia link to see if they got it right, caught all of them, or properly did their homework...if nothing else, i am sure it has the lulz....but if you had noticed around here, i have debunked quite a few self proclaimed christians, usually by utilizing their own scriptures

pre-conceived notions are an impediment to actually learning, imo

[Forgin]

I am agnostic, because to claim with 100% certainty that there is no god would go against my beliefs in science and logic.

However I do believe the world would be a much better place if we all acted as atheists, and ignored the possibility of a god existing.

[Honest Bill]

I would have to go with Atheist. I have no evidence that a 'god' exists. at least by widespread definitions of god. But until i have sufficient evidence either way, i can't claim to know for certain either way.

[Scully]

actually, i think you would find that agnostics are the honest ones who say "fuck if i know"

anyone who claims anything metaphysical as a matter of certainty is either self deluded or just plain simple minded

oh yes, and poll fails for lack of bewbz option

Or just smarter then you.

[DocGonzo]

Or just smarter then you.

nice troll attempt

but i'll hit it for the sake of the conversation

smarter? how so?

because they can take a leap of faith devoid of facts, this makes "smarter"?

i don't think that word means what you think it means

[Lotharr]

I am agnostic, because to claim with 100% certainty that there is no god would go against my beliefs in science and logic.

However I do believe the world would be a much better place if we all acted as atheists, and ignored the possibility of a god existing.

Pretty much this.

[Scully]

nice troll attempt

but i'll hit it for the sake of the conversation

smarter? how so?

because they can take a leap of faith devoid of facts, this makes "smarter"?

i don't think that word means what you think it means

I assume you have the same opinion of atheists. That they're stupid for "knowing" that there is no god. In which I disagree. We might just be smarter than you. Assuming you're an agnostic. Lots of assuming here lol

[DocGonzo]

I assume you have the same opinion of atheists. That they're stupid for "knowing" that there is no god. In which I disagree. We might just be smarter than you. Assuming you're an agnostic. Lots of assuming here lol

yep, lots of assuming on your part

i share one thing with atheists...a lack of Faith

that being said, i do think they take a leap of Faith in being positive of their assertion, but i find it MUCH less offensive to be certain about a lack of Faith than their counterparts who assert their Faith is an absolute Truth

so, answer the question, where does this "smart" come into play...quantify it and demonstrate some for the rest of us, otherwise you are spewing as much faith based bullshit as those you are railing against, Q.E.D.

[Zurk]

So? What are you?

I'm a theist myself.

I saw your state and I already knew the answer.

Texas.. LOL.

[Floyd]

So? What are you?

I'm a theist myself.

lol

[Honest Bill]

Being an Atheist doesn't necessarily mean that you know there is no god, or that you assert as such. It merely means you are without theism.

[Scully]

yep, lots of assuming on your part

i share one thing with atheists...a lack of Faith

that being said, i do think they take a leap of Faith in being positive of their assertion, but i find it MUCH less offensive to be certain about a lack of Faith than their counterparts who assert their Faith is an absolute Truth

so, answer the question, where does this "smart" come into play...quantify it and demonstrate some for the rest of us, otherwise you are spewing as much faith based bullshit as those you are railing against, Q.E.D.

Everything exists because nothing can't exist. Ergo no god. Or at least no god that created the universe.

[Lotharr]

cucumber

[Honest Bill]

cucumber

I hope you can back that up with evidence...

[DocGonzo]

Everything exists because nothing can't exist. Ergo no god. Or at least no god that created the universe.

bold statement...show your proof plz...this is just a bald assertion proclaimed as an axiomatic postulate which you have miserably failed to prove

and never have i claimed that any "god" or even demi-urge "created" everything

until and unless you can define the term "god", you have no logical base to stand upon

and those who do believe in a *god* have the difficulty of explaining where *it* came from originally as well

hence the only honest answer remains , "fuck if i know", imo

[Honest Bill]

bold statement...show your proof plz...this is just a bald assertion proclaimed as an axiomatic postulate which you have miserably failed to prove

and never have i claimed that any "god" or even demi-urge "created" everything

until and unless you can define the term "god", you have no logical base to stand upon

and those who do believe in a *god* have the difficulty of explaining where *it* came from originally as well

hence the only honest answer remains , "fuck if i know", imo

Before today I would have agreed with you, but i think Lotharr may be on to something..

[verlox2]

I saw your state and I already knew the answer.

Texas.. LOL.

Not a Christian though, which makes me an outsider around here.

[Scully]

bold statement...show your proof plz...this is just a bald assertion proclaimed as an axiomatic postulate which you have miserably failed to prove

and never have i claimed that any "god" or even demi-urge "created" everything

until and unless you can define the term "god", you have no logical base to stand upon

and those who do believe in a *god* have the difficulty of explaining where *it* came from originally as well

hence the only honest answer remains , "fuck if i know", imo

Answer this. Can nothing exist? No? there would always have to be something. Do you agree?

[Targuil]

Officially still theist (not have to pay taxes yet). But mentally atheist.

[Honest Bill]

Answer this. Can nothing exist? No? there would always have to be something. Do you agree?

I'd like to see where you are going with this, so let's just say for argument's sake that I agree

[DocGonzo]

Answer this. Can nothing exist? No? there would always have to be something. Do you agree?

lol..."fuck if i know"

what exists between the Event Horizon and the Core of a Black Hole?

or within the "hard vacuum" between galaxies where your chance of even finding a stray hydrogen atom is infinitesmal per cubic light year?

show your proof rather than making unfounded assertions if you want to try and convince me...otherwise , "fuck if i know" still remains the only honest answer, imo

[Scully]

I'd like to see where you are going with this, so let's just say for argument's sake that I agree

Because nothing can't exist. Something had/has to exist. That is how this world came to be and why it exists. It was never created. Not by a god, not by anyone. Could a being so powerful that we might mistake it for a god, exist? sure. But christians, muslims etc are all wrong. Their religions are bullturd.

[Honest Bill]

Because nothing can't exist. Something had/has to exist. That is how this world came to be and why it exists. It was never created. Not by a god, not by anyone. Could a being so powerful that we might mistake it for a god, exist? sure. But christians, muslims etc are all wrong. Their religions are bullturd.

But just because something has to exist (assuming it does), why does that mean there is no god?

And just because Christian and Muslim theology, is, as you say wrong, why does that mean there is no god?

And if a being so powerful exists, that could be mistaken for a god? then what makes you think it is a mistake? what is the definition of 'god' in your eyes?

[Scully]

But just because something has to exist (assuming it does), why does that mean there is no god?

And just because Christian and Muslim theology, is, as you say wrong, why does that mean there is no god?

And if a being so powerful exists, that could be mistaken for a god? then what makes you think it is a mistake? what is the definition of 'god' in your eyes?

You're right. A "god" by your definition can exist. But there wouldn't be anything supernatural about it.

[DocGonzo]

Because nothing can't exist. Something had/has to exist. That is how this world came to be and why it exists. It was never created. Not by a god, not by anyone. Could a being so powerful that we might mistake it for a god, exist? sure. But christians, muslims etc are all wrong. Their religions are bullturd.

objection, your Honor, the witness is conflating *god* with *religioun* and not defining his terms

[Honest Bill]

You're right. A "god" by your definition can exist. But there wouldn't be anything supernatural about it.

So a 'natural' god might indeed exist?

[Scully]

So a 'natural' god might indeed exist?

Well then it wouldn't really be a god. At least not in the traditional sense. It would be a powerful alien. Theoretically I suppose it could be possible.

[Bob Hope]

yeah atheist

[Honest Bill]

Well then it wouldn't really be a god. At least not in the traditional sense. It would be a powerful alien. Theoretically I suppose it would be possible.

But what is the true definition of 'god'? If it isn't the 'being' or 'entity' which created the physical universe as we observe it today?

[DocGonzo]

But what is the true definition of 'god'? If it isn't the 'being' or 'entity' which created the physical universe as we observe it today?

also, no matter the form, if it exists it is *natural* thus rendering the supernatural objection irrelevant

i can agree, that i don't think there is anything supernatural...anything outside the boundaries of current scientific explanation is just that, unexplained...nothing can be *supernatural* , by definition

[Honest Bill]

also, no matter the form, if it exists it is *natural* thus rendering the supernatural objection irrelevant

i can agree, that i don't think there is anything supernatural...anything outside the boundaries of current scientific explanation is just that, unexplained...nothing can be *supernatural* , by definition

Yes i'll go along with that, it might be considered supernatural, within the boundaries of what we currently understand the physical universe to be. But i've never really liked the term supernatural either

[ZeroCool]

There is no evidence God exists, but there is evidence that God doesn't exist. Evidence such as genocide, war, disease, famine, terrorism, organized religion, george bush, and the US goverment..It's a pretty bad argument too, but its better then theres a invisible man in the sky theory..OR you can just believe in God and he exists right?? Atleast just for you; just like how a young child believes he has invisible/make believe friends...

lol...

If "God" were our creator, then the only thing he would of created were these naked bodies and this universe. So therefore all famine, war, terrisom, ect. falls on man, not God. You cant say he doesnt exist because he doesnt intervene. Any "evidence" that God exists would be philosophical or personal testimony.

And please, the theist side deffinitally wins for number of great people.

[Scully]

lol...

If "God" were our creator, then the only thing he would of created were these naked bodies and this universe. So therefore all famine, war, terrisom, ect. falls on man, not God. You cant say he doesnt exist because he doesnt intervene. Any "evidence" that God exists would be philosophical or personal testimony.

And please, the theist side deffinitally wins for number of great people.

That's because there are so many of them. You definitely have the most retards as well.

[ZeroCool]

That's because there are so many of them. You definitely have the most retards as well.

Einstein wasnt retarded.

[Scully]

Einstein wasnt retarded.

No, but you certainly seem retarded. What a fucking random statement.

[ZeroCool]

No, but you certainly seem retarded. What a fucking random statement.

Lol your name calling on the internet and calling me "retarded". Take a chill pill, i just laugh when i see people vent over the web, its so childish.

Its not my fault anyone who made a significant impact on society was a theist, in one form or the other.

[Scully]

Lol your name calling on the internet and calling me "retarded". Take a chill pill, i just laugh when i see people vent over the web, its so childish.

Its not my fault anyone who made a significant impact on society was a theist, in one form or the other.

Intelligent people aren't immune to brainwashing.

[[O]_Fawkes]

Einstein wasnt retarded.

He wasn't slow, but he did have a mental defect that actually made him smarter.

No, but you certainly seem retarded. What a fucking random statement.

Lulz yeh all teh theist r rtardz luls...

[Bissen]

Why can't theists believe in something cool atleast. Instead of these crummy punishing, fearmongering, elitist gods. Give us the God of free stuff, alcohol and nekkid sexually aroused ladies.

I would totally believe in that!

[ZeroCool]

Intelligent people aren't immune to brainwashing.

I agree with you.

But you also know theism doesnt always = conventional religious.

[Scully]

I agree with you.

But you also know theism doesnt always = conventional religious.

No, but most theists affiliate themselves with a religion.

[ZeroCool]

No, but most theists affiliate themselves with a religion.

very true.

But it so happens that Einstein and a good portion of influencial philosophers didnt.

[Tithan Natus]

There is no evidence God exists, but there is evidence that God doesn't exist. Evidence such as genocide, war, disease, famine, terrorism, organized religion, george bush, and the US goverment..It's a pretty bad argument too, but its better then theres a invisible man in the sky theory..OR you can just believe in God and he exists right?? Atleast just for you; just like how a young child believes he has invisible/make believe friends...

I never had an imaginary friend. I've been atheist my whole life.

[Bosemann]

So you believe that god is unknowable, but at the same time don't believe he exists? Isn't that a knowledge claim? Seems contradictory. I'd just call you an atheist trying to make a euphemism of his position, like every other "agnostic atheist".


Eh? you have your definition a little messed up it seems. Agnostic atheism means I do not believe there is a god, but acknowledge that I do not know enough information to determine that a god does not exist. Perhaps you wouldn't have such a negative viewpoint of it if you could appreciate what it actually means.

[verlox2]

_Fawkes;3549217']He wasn't slow, but he did have a mental defect that actually made him smarter.

Wasn't he slightly autistic...or maybe it was the learning disorder....

[Gloomrender]

whoah here...are you stipulating only the possibility of contemporary christian version of a thing called a "god"?

there i can easily agree, i don't think such exists...i guess you weren't aware that my "Doc" is from theology (some study also in comparative mythology and cultural anthropology), but i make my living as an electronics systemic diagnostician for the last 6 years or so

so, i am well aware of the inconsistencies of christian mythology, spare me your indignation

So you are an Atheist in regards to Christianity? Or you just "don't think but don't claim to know"? If so, I don't know why you don't take that half a step and be an Atheist if you essentially know that the entire religion is bullshit even better than I in terms of scripture at least.

as for any "empirical proof" against any possibility of a theistic bent...do please link me ONE...i can use the laugh

however, if it is an actual proof...and not just suppositional evidence...i'm happy to look at it and such would indeed change my thinking in the same way that dead fairy under an autopsy would

You're not having a realistic expectation in terms of expecting a "fairy autopsy". This is probably the block that is preventing you from being a full blown atheist, this constraint on what is evidence and what isn't (you essentially think nothing in the entirety of existence counts when Atheists would beg to differ). There's never going to be a shuttle to imaginationland whereby you can go and prove that no god or deity was up there waiting for a picture. That doesn't mean however that we can't use physical examples in reality to demonstrate that X god isn't around because of Y evidence contradicting It's supposed existence in Z way. But I suppose if you were going to go for that you would already be an Atheist, and you will never settle for anything less than an impossible to attain fairy autopsy...so I would be wasting my time trying with you. This brings us back to the issue of intellectual laziness on the part of Agnostics who don't fully consider all the evidence that is indeed available.

[DocGonzo]

i do consider the evidence available, i just don't find such circumstantial speculations enough to think it as sufficient *proof* of hypothesis, hence my sticking with *fuck if i know*

but, to add to it, i spend zero time contemplating the possibilities either way unless engaged in conversation about the topic, since either way it just doesn't matter to me

[Drekor]

Agnostic

Being an atheist is as stupid as being a theist. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Athiest base their ideals on the fact god does not exist which they cannot prove meaning they are taking a ... wait for it ... leap of faith. Agnostics accept that it is highly improbably that god exists but do not take the possibility out of the equation because we do not have a definitive answer yet.

[Gloomrender]

Eh? you have your definition a little messed up it seems. Agnostic atheism means I do not believe there is a god, but acknowledge that I do not know enough information to determine that a god does not exist. Perhaps you wouldn't have such a negative viewpoint of it if you could appreciate what it actually means.

Actually your definition of agnosticism is incorrect, here's the right one:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk

It's you who doesn't even know what he believes. And even your modified definition is stupid along the same lines.

[Gloomrender]

Agnostic

Being an atheist is as stupid as being a theist. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Athiest base their ideals on the fact god does not exist which they cannot prove meaning they are taking a ... wait for it ... leap of faith. Agnostics accept that it is highly improbably that god exists but do not take the possibility out of the equation because we do not have a definitive answer yet.

:rolleyes: Typical self-glorifying not trying hard enough agnostic. Hell you don't even know how Atheists think for that matter or hardly even what Atheism is (here's a hint you stupid asshole, we don't take it on faith, we operate on logic and evidence). You're just ignorant all around. And your hair thin notions of "proof" are meaningless:

The one thing that pisses me off more then an ignorant theist is a self righteous, circle jerking agnostic.

I cant prove or disprove that magical fairies that live in my garden, should we just be agnostic about them too?

Accepting nothing but a fairy autopsy as evidence against god is absurdly ridiculous.

[Gloomrender]

i do consider the evidence available, i just don't find such circumstantial speculations enough to think it as sufficient *proof* of hypothesis, hence my sticking with *fuck if i know*

Right nothing counts but the fairy autopsy to you.

but, to add to it, i spend zero time contemplating the possibilities either way unless engaged in conversation about the topic,

Well...no wonder. You're kinda proving my point here with the laziness thing. Maybe some day you will think harder and longer and finally become an Atheist.

since either way it just doesn't matter to me

Well it matters to me. I should think such profound questions should matter to everyone. But to each his own.

[Tithan Natus]

Agnostic

Being an atheist is as stupid as being a theist. It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. Athiest base their ideals on the fact god does not exist which they cannot prove meaning they are taking a ... wait for it ... leap of faith. Agnostics accept that it is highly improbably that god exists but do not take the possibility out of the equation because we do not have a definitive answer yet.

Pick a fucking side, pussy. I hate agnostics thinking, "Oh but we can't prove god doesn't exist!" Yeah, and we can't prove there isn't an invisible "flying spaghetti monster" either, but it's pretty probable there isn't one.

Shouldn't probability alone be reason enough to choose a side?

[Bosemann]

Actually your definition of agnosticism is incorrect, here's the right one:

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/agnostic?view=uk

It's you who doesn't even know what he believes. And even your modified definition is stupid along the same lines.

It's amusing that you think finding a single definition that fits your purpose makes it the right one. I can't decide if you're just trolling or really didn't bother to look up agnostic atheism. Either way, here's something for you to read.

Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible. A person can either believe or not believe in a God. Therefore, our previous definition of atheism has made an impossibility out of the common usage of agnosticism to mean “neither affirming nor denying a belief in God.” Actually, this is no great loss, because the dictionary definition of agnostic is still again different from Huxley’s definition. The literal meaning of agnostic is one who holds that some aspect of reality is unknowable. Therefore, an agnostic is not simply someone who suspends judgment on an issue, but rather one who suspends judgment because he feels that the subject is unknowable and therefore no judgment can be made. It is possible, therefore, for someone not to believe in a God (as Huxley did not) and yet still suspend judgment (ie, be an agnostic) about whether it is possible to obtain knowledge of a God. Such a person would be an atheistic agnostic. It is also possible to believe in the existence of a force behind the universe, but to hold (as did Herbert Spencer) that any knowledge of that force was unobtainable. Such a person would be a theistic agnostic.
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/what.htm

[DocGonzo]

Right nothing counts but the fairy autopsy to you.



Well...no wonder. You're kinda proving my point here with the laziness thing. Maybe some day you will think harder and longer and finally become an Atheist.



Well it matters to me. I should think such profound questions should matter to everyone. But to each his own.

umm...i';m still waiting for you to show me this evidence you speak of...not sophistry, but you know, scientific verifiable data that proves your hypothesis...you keep mentioning it, but never supplying any

and the fairy autopsy would prove that fairies exist, wouldn't it? it's one scientifically and logically valid proof of the statement they do exist...yes, i am guilty without one of those, or something like it ...i would not believe in fairies, santa, bigfoot or the easter bunny

you are saying i am lacking some type of rigor in methodology because i do not believe in your point....hell, i don't *believe* in anything...i think things, i observe...but believe? nope...

so, where is this proof of yours, this evidence you say i am lazy about...show me what you have and i'll gladly look it over, up until now you make many claims , but prove nothing.....same as the theists

i don't worry about this kind of shit, because i think it is fucking impossible to know, one way or another...and so nothing can be gained by the pursuit of that which cannot be caught...so why fuck with it?

if it gives you, or others joy to mentally masturbate about the unknowable, welll..enjoy yourselves and don't forget to wash up afterwards

[DocGonzo]

Pick a fucking side, pussy. I hate agnostics thinking, "Oh but we can't prove god doesn't exist!" Yeah, and we can't prove there isn't an invisible "flying spaghetti monster" either, but it's pretty probable there isn't one.

Shouldn't probability alone be reason enough to choose a side?

the flight of a bumblebee is considered not only improbable, but impossible to engineers and mathematicians

but it flies, improbable as it is...

plenty more examples of the highly improbable happening all the time, the coelocanth was considered extinct for millions of years until some fisherman pulled it into his boat

on and on....

[newfireorange]

Most people that play MMO's are atheist. This is coming from myself. I have played, like most of you, for at least 5 years of MMO's.

My sociology teacher at my community college though claims that 99.9% of the earth's population are theist. That is his true fact, not mine at all. I do believe that more and more people are becoming atheist though over time. It's a DOT.

[ZeroCool]

Wasn't he slightly autistic...or maybe it was the learning disorder....

Comming from someone whos extensivly studied him, he had no disorder or learning ability. He became highly curious at a young age about the universe, light mainly. He spent alot of his time thinking about these problems and eventually comming up with solutions.

He made sup par grades in school and failed mathematics, he skipped class alot to sit in coffee shops and think.

[Gloomrender]

you are saying i am lacking some type of rigor in methodology because i do not believe in your point...

No I'm saying your methodology is flawed because you're limited to thinking that only a fairy autopsy counts as proof. Therefore nothing I could possibly volunteer would satisfy your inherently unrealistic standards of evidence making it pointless to bother discussing it.

i don't worry about this kind of shit, because i think it is fucking impossible to know, one way or another...and so nothing can be gained by the pursuit of that which cannot be caught...so why fuck with it?

if it gives you, or others joy to mentally masturbate about the unknowable, welll..enjoy yourselves and don't forget to wash up afterwards

Well I think the differing implications between a Christian style god existing, or not existing are rather significant considering the hypothetical causality of it all. Don't you think? And the same is true for all religious or spiritual beliefs or the lack thereof. And general philosophical notions as well. I should think these all have value to anyone. But hey if you don't care about existence, and all there is to you is your day job, porn, gaming, and pizza, good for you, dude.

[Gloomrender]

It's amusing that you think finding a single definition that fits your purpose makes it the right one. I can't decide if you're just trolling or really didn't bother to look up agnostic atheism. Either way, here's something for you to read.

That is the definitive dictionary definition of Agnosticism.

I know what agnostic atheism is. And yes I find it half-assed and transitional, because I used to proudly drop wiki links to it too. Then after I explored Atheistic arguments and evidence more, I dropped the agnostic. If you give it all more thought, you probably will too eventually.

[DocGonzo]

No I'm saying your methodology is flawed because you're limited to thinking that only a fairy autopsy counts as proof. Therefore nothing I could possibly volunteer would satisfy your inherently unrealistic standards of evidence making it pointless to bother discussing it.



Well I think the differing implications between a Christian style god existing, or not existing are rather significant considering the hypothetical causality of it all. Don't you think? And the same is true for all religious or spiritual beliefs or the lack thereof. And general philosophical notions as well. I should think these all have value to anyone. But hey if you don't care about existence, and all there is to you is your day job, porn, gaming, and pizza, good for you, dude.

you are making assumptions again, this time in asserting what i will or will not accept as evidence, or what the demarcation is in constituting a proof

and yet time and time again, when asked to bestow your enlightenment and share these proofs, you make a lazy excuse and give not a single example or reference as to wtf you are rambling about...thus providing empirical data that you have no such proofs or evidence.....gg indeed

show your proofs/evidence that you think is so convincing...i am open to looking at it (third time i've asked it and third time i've explained i am open to it)...but time and again, you don't provide ANY

and once again, you go back to this narrow definition of a "christian god"...which we have already discounted, but rather than address that there might be something that could be considered a "god" (we still have NO definitions provided)

as for general philosophical notions, as you put it...that's a far different animal than what is under discussion here, and conflating the two as you have is pretty sloppy thinking, isn't it?

so, show your evidence plz...

[Gloomrender]

you are making assumptions again, this time in asserting what i will or will not accept as evidence, or what the demarcation is in constituting a proof


and yet time and time again, when asked to bestow your enlightenment and share these proofs, you make a lazy excuse and give not a single example or reference as to wtf you are rambling about..

Don't be dishonest now (I guess that's asking a lot on a forum like this, lol Especially from you). Your standard of proof is the fairy autopsy, you've already stated as much in this thread. Now you just want to take a shit on anything else I could bring to the table rather than actually consider it. Well, I'm not going to give you that satisfaction knowing full well your obvious intentions which bleed out through your language. Go ahead and play the whining "omg you won't give meez your proofs!" card.:rolleyes: It's no skin off my back, since I do know what I am talking about. I have pages and pages of this kind of shit all over my computer.



and once again, you go back to this narrow definition of a "christian god"...which we have already discounted, but rather than address that there might be something that could be considered a "god" (we still have NO definitions provided)

It's called giving an example. You've only just now demanded an exact definition for what a god constitutes. And I'll gladly answer that I furthermore do not think that anything under the specific definition of a "god" exists.


as for general philosophical notions, as you put it...that's a far different animal than what is under discussion here, and conflating the two as you have is pretty sloppy thinking, isn't it?

You were very blunt and general in stating that the "unknowable", which could and does include philosophical notions, is masturbatory to discuss, pizza boy. Very sloppy indeed.

[Bissen]

It's called giving an example. You've only just now demanded an exact definition for what a god constitutes. And I'll gladly answer that I furthermore do not think that anything under the specific definition of a "god" exists.

Then why the fuck do you keep arguing for it?

[Mippoose]

Pat Condell is my hero.

[Bosemann]

That is the definitive dictionary definition of Agnosticism.

I know what agnostic atheism is. And yes I find it half-assed and transitional, because I used to proudly drop wiki links to it too. Then after I explored Atheistic arguments and evidence more, I dropped the agnostic. If you give it all more thought, you probably will too eventually.

No, its not. You saying it is the definitive definition does not make it so. A person can be agnostic if they believe as that definition says
nothing can be known concerning the existence of God

However someone who believes that there is not enough evidence at our disposal to prove whether a god exists or not is also an agnostic. There are multiple distinct lines of thought that are incorporated under 'agnosticism'. As for your 'definitive definition, I think I'll stick with understanding the concept based off the ideas of the guy who coined the phrase as opposed to one dictionary definition.

it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.

It's amusing to argue with a bigoted atheist about all this. Most atheists I know are a little more tolerant.

So, what's this evidence that makes my viewpoint so lazy and half-assed. Do tell.

[Slade Trillgon]

In partying with Doc using the ever changing world of science as your proof that no "god" exists is as laughable as using theological texts as proof.

I lack faith and I do not believe in a sentient creator, so I vote agnostic.

[DocGonzo]

Don't be dishonest now (I guess that's asking a lot on a forum like this, lol Especially from you). Your standard of proof is the fairy autopsy, you've already stated as much in this thread. Now you just want to take a shit on anything else I could bring to the table rather than actually consider it. Well, I'm not going to give you that satisfaction knowing full well your obvious intentions which bleed out through your language. Go ahead and play the whining "omg you won't give meez your proofs!" card.:rolleyes: It's no skin off my back, since I do know what I am talking about. I have pages and pages of this kind of shit all over my computer.

so for all your whining, you still won't show your proof...these "pages and pages"

your choice, child...i've already said numerous times i am more than happy to look at it for serious consideration on multiple occasions in this thread...you scream you have it, but won't show it....you are as bad as any theist in this matter as far as i am concerned


It's called giving an example. You've only just now demanded an exact definition for what a god constitutes. And I'll gladly answer that I furthermore do not think that anything under the specific definition of a "god" exists.

your "example" was an excellent one...against religion, but has nothing to do wiht other possibilities, but as i agreed, does a fine job of shooting down contemporary christianity ad "literal truth"...i agreed and demonstrated my understanding of your argument as well as the material...yet you think, for some bizarre reason, that i would not apply the same rigor and objective viewpoint to whatever evidence you might present for the larger scale

therefor your position flies in the very face of the evidence presented in this thread ( that i am willing and capable of looking at information and drawing a logical conclusion) in respect to a point we both already agree on!

sounds like the very sloppy thinking of a petulant brat to me, but i'll leave the Record for those who read it to decide


You were very blunt and general in stating that the "unknowable", which could and does include philosophical notions, is masturbatory to discuss, pizza boy. Very sloppy indeed.

you are including areas which i did not specify, now aren't you...that's making unfounded assumptions and extrapolating things not said from a simple and very specific statement

again, another example of a very inept thought process on your part, but it's ok...either you don't have such evidence, are not confident of it's veracity or have some other hang up about putting it up here that is not evident from the text in this thread....doesn't matter which

you keep making claims of factual infallibility, yet never produce said facts when asked....gg indeed

enjoy your day

[Jedicake]

The older you get the more you realize how fucked up this world is.

Thankfully I realized how fucked up the world is at only age 18

I'm a proud Atheist

[Forgin]

The older you get the more you realize how fucked up this world is.

Thankfully I realized how fucked up the world is at only age 18

I'm a proud Atheist

How is the world fucked up?

And why are you proud to be atheist?

[Lotharr]

Pick a fucking side, pussy. I hate agnostics thinking, "Oh but we can't prove god doesn't exist!" Yeah, and we can't prove there isn't an invisible "flying spaghetti monster" either, but it's pretty probable there isn't one.

Shouldn't probability alone be reason enough to choose a side?

Shows something about how your thoughts operate.

What do you gain by absolutely denying the existence of something that has not been proven either way?

Sure, you can be against theistic literature and what is has created in this world. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual belief.

[Rimayven]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geS-s96sfSo

For all you heretics.

[DocGonzo]

Shows something about how your thoughts operate.

What do you gain by absolutely denying the existence of anything that has not been proven either way?

Sure, you can be against theistic literature and what is has created in this world. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual belief.

wisdom displayed clearly, imo

[Lotharr]

wisdom displayed clearly, imo

Is that the reason you are an atheist? True wisdom is displayed by completely different means.

[Rimayven]

What kind of god do agnostic people suspect to exist but cannot be proven into existence? Zeus? Thor? Buddha? Some Spaghetti Monster?

[Lotharr]

What kind of god do agnostic people suspect to exist but cannot be proven into existence? Zeus? Thor? Buddha? Some Spaghetti Monster?

Obviously any of them. Also, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

[Rimayven]

Obviously any of them.

Agnosticism sounds awesome.

We are all aware that the senses can be fooled, the brain deceived, but how can we be sure that we are not being fooled at any moment of our 'existence' or even all the time? Might I be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing the events of this world by some evil computer, and does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

EDIT: I picked 'atheist' since I don't know what a theist is.

[Lotharr]

Might I be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing the events of this world by some evil computer, and does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

That's a "modified" version of probably one of the most known philosophical theories. It has nothing to do with religion. Look into Plato's literature.

[Rimayven]

That's a "modified" version of probably one of the most known philosophical theories. It has nothing to do with religion. Look into Plato's literature.

Oh, everyone was talking about religion? Thought it was something else, pardon me.

Many different kinds of religions, many different gods, but how can we be 100% sure that this guy has found the one true God?

EDIT: and how do we know he is absolutely right about his invisible daddy?

[DocGonzo]

Is that the reason you are an atheist? True wisdom is displayed by completely different means.

did you read the thread?

it was me who brought out the agnostic argument...and no, i haven't even gotten into Plato's Cave ....yet

i merely state that i am one without gnosis

and that the formulaic statement of my operational theorem is that gnosis > dogma

but i digress...

[Rimayven]

did you read the thread?

it was me who brought out the agnostic argument...and no, i haven't even gotten into Plato's Cave ....yet

i merely state that i am one without gnosis

and that the formulaic statement of my operational theorem is that gnosis > dogma

but i digress...

Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true, rather than what evidence has shown to be likely and possible, has always astounded me.

We yearn for a caring universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, yet in the face of mountains of evidence pointing towards the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts.

God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.

[Lotharr]

Oh, everyone was talking about religion? Thought it was something else, pardon me.

We were talking about agnosticism. Agnosticism is quite profoundly linked with theology, hence the comment.

Many different kinds of religions, many different gods, but how can we be 100% sure that this guy has found the one true God?

Indeed.

[Lotharr]

did you read the thread?

it was me who brought out the agnostic argument...and no, i haven't even gotten into Plato's Cave ....yet

I did not read the thread throughoutly. I thought you were answering to this question:

What do you gain by absolutely denying the existence of anything that has not been proven either way?

Sorry about that one!

[StrawberryClock]

I believe that the anthropic principle fucks all of you atheists over.

That's my belief in life.

[Rimayven]

I believe that the anthropic principle fucks all of you atheists over.

That's my belief in life.

Anthropic principle? What's that?

[StrawberryClock]

Anthropic principle? What's that?

Its something that the almighty omniscient, lord of all the internet can answer.

Here, he spake upon thou. (http://tinyurl.com/nzrk2s)

Also, Skree? You have his signature.

[Lotharr]

Anthropic principle? What's that?

Wikipedia is your friend.

[StrawberryClock]

Wikipedia is your friend.

My God is greater than your God.

[Lotharr]

My God is greater than your God.

Facts do back up your theory. I agree with you.

[StrawberryClock]

Facts do back up your theory. I agree with you.

Indeed, let us make continual warfare.

[Lotharr]

Indeed, let us make continual warfare.

Would I create a pseudo-paradox if I said that my God is lesser than your God?

[StrawberryClock]

Would I create a pseudo-paradox if I said that my God is lesser than your God?

No but you would create confusion by even telling me what a pseudo-paradox is. I only take the written word of my lord as the truth.

[Lotharr]

No but you would create confusion by even telling me what a pseudo-paradox is. I only take the written word of my lord as the truth.

High five?

[StrawberryClock]

High five?

Only after I repent for my sin I'm about to commit.

[Lotharr]

Only after I repent for my sin I'm about to commit.

Shit's awesome! (http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/5342/hifive.jpg)

[Skree]

Also, Skree? You have his signature.I have never understood that. A compliment ?

Skree

[DocGonzo]

I have never understood that. A compliment ?

Skree

it's back!!!!

hide the children and small farm animals

[Tithan Natus]

Shows something about how your thoughts operate.

What do you gain by absolutely denying the existence of something that has not been proven either way?

Sure, you can be against theistic literature and what is has created in this world. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual belief.

I guess I don't "gain" anything, it just makes sense to me that if there was a god wouldn't it be obvious? (if you go by religious texts) and if it isn't obvious, can you really call them a "god"?

So therefore I conclude that if there is a god, it would be nothing like our current ideals of a god. In which case I don't care if there is or isn't a god, because when I die I'll still be rotting in the ground.

[Lotharr]

I guess I don't "gain" anything, it just makes sense to me that if there was a god wouldn't it be obvious? (if you go by religious texts) and if it isn't obvious, can you really call them a "god"?

Agnosticism does not only go by the Christian literature. It is concerning any and all of the deities in general.

The question you asked about being able to call him a "god" is not really linked to this discussion. I do not personally believe that a god exists, I just do not deny the fact that it could.

I believe that god is a metaphor used by ancient people to describe concepts they did not fully understand. It was the easy explanation.

So therefore I conclude that if there is a god, it would be nothing like our current ideals of a god. In which case I don't care if there is or isn't a god, because when I die I'll still be rotting in the ground.

Isn't that more like agnosticism? I don't really care either if there is a god or not. I do not care what it can or can not do.

[Tithan Natus]

Agnosticism does not only go by the Christian literature. It is concerning any and all of the deities in general.

The question you asked about being able to call him a "god" is not really linked to this discussion. I do not personally believe that a god exists, I just do not deny the fact that it could.

I believe that god is a metaphor used by ancient people to describe concepts they did not fully understand. It was the easy explanation.



Isn't that more like agnosticism? I don't really care either if there is a god or not. I do not care what it can or can not do.

Okay fine I'm an agnostic atheist it seems. :rolleyes:

[Lotharr]

Okay fine I'm an agnostic atheist it seems. :rolleyes:

So you don't deny that a god could exist? I'm confused now.

[Beeblebrox]

What am I if I don't know if a creator does exist or not but I wholeheartedly hate most religions and what they represent?

[Lotharr]

What am I if I don't know if a creator does exist or not by I wholeheartedly hate most religions and what they represent?

That's normal agnosticism. Theistic literature is linked to the beliefs by no means.

[Tithan Natus]

So you don't deny that a god could exist? I'm confused now.

I'd say there is a chance. But it certainly would not be the god from any religion on this planet. How would we have any way of knowing? There could be a god who created the universe and then just decided to sit back and watch while doing nothing. We'd have no way to tell.

And at that point, it does not matter to me if a god exists or not, because it appears as though they have no effect on me, or what happens when I die, etc.

[Beeblebrox]

That's normal agnosticism. Theistic literature is linked to the beliefs by no means.

Great, then I'm a Normal Agnostic. Next step is to build a Normal Agnostic Temple and start preaching to people, while asking for their money and enticing them to destroy all other religions.

edit:

And then proclaim myself the Lord and Savior of men.

[Lotharr]

But it certainly would not be the god from any religion on this planet.

If the deities would be like they're described in a majority of theistic literature, then no, most likely not. However, that's not the point.

I'd say there is a chance. How would we have any way of knowing? There could be a god who created the universe and then just decided to sit back and watch while doing nothing. We'd have no way to tell.

Indeed, that's exactly the point.

And at that point, it does not matter to me if a god exists or not, because it appears as though they have no effect on me, or what happens when I die, etc.

True. You don't have to care. I don't care personally, either.

Now see what made me strike up the conversation in the first place:

Pick a fucking side, pussy. I hate agnostics thinking, "Oh but we can't prove god doesn't exist!"

Heh.

[Tithan Natus]

If the deities would be like they're described in a majority of theistic literature, then no, most likely not. However, that's not the point.



Indeed, that's exactly the point.



True. You don't have to care. I don't care personally, either.

Now see what made me strike up the conversation in the first place:



Heh.

Eh, it just makes me mad when they give the impression that they are so high and mighty and that atheists are just as stupid as theists. Cause I mean its one thing to believe in god, and another to think you know everything about said god and that you and your select group of people are the only ones to be "saved". Thats why I don't see atheists and theists on the same level, so when an agnostic person puts them on the same level, and then thinking they are so above the rest its like wtf?

[Lotharr]

Eh, it just makes me mad when they give the impression that they are so high and mighty and that atheists are just as stupid as theists.

Each group is built up of different kind of personalities. You should not make a stereotype.

Cause I mean its one thing to believe in god, and another to think you know everything about said god and that you and your select group of people are the only ones to be "saved".

Indeed, it is.

However, the latter group is obviously linked with theistic literature and religious communities. Again, those don't have anything to do with the actual belief. In that case, they should not be brought into this discussion.

Thats why I don't see atheists and theists on the same level, so when an agnostic person puts them on the same level, and then thinking they are so above the rest its like wtf?

Why would you deem yourself as an atheist, if you personally said that it's impossible to prove or disprove deities existence? I understand your point. I also understand the other stance.

The way I undestand the other stance is, that if you can't prove it either way, both beliefs are basically the same thing. In the deepest meaning, both sides would fully have to believe into something that can not be proved.

[Beeblebrox]

Even Dawkins already stated he doesn't have complete certainty of the nonexistence of god (99%, perhaps 99,9%) he said. Absolute certainty is not something very scientific or prudent. I don't like to call myself agnostic because that shows the idea that I don't care about the subject, when in reality I care a lot about it. I just find it incredibly amusing and sad that people live their lives according to arbitrary rules dictated by a god which cannot be proved to exist.

If there's a creator, our best way to find out is through logic and science. Until we have solid evidence of it, there's no reason to consider it as a valid possibility (even if we're not entirely sure of it) and that's why I'm an atheist.


Or not.

[Tithan Natus]

Each group is built up of different kind of personalities. You should not make a stereotype.

I didn't mean it like that. I meant when they do act like that, not that they always do. And not that everybody has.

Indeed, it is.

However, the latter group is obviously linked with theistic literature and religious communities. Again, those don't have anything to do with the actual belief. In that case, they should not be brought into this discussion.

Okay my bad.

Why would you deem yourself as an atheist, if you personally said that it's impossible to prove or disprove deities existence? I understand your point. I also understand the other stance.

Because I don't believe there is a god, while still acknowledging that there is a possibility. (Agnostic Atheism) I'll be happy to believe in a god if I find the evidence convincing enough. It may be impossible to prove either way at the moment, but eventually there may be.

The way I undestand the other stance is, that if you can't prove it either way, both beliefs are basically the same thing. In the deepest meaning, both sides would fully have to believe into something that can not be proved in a way or another.

I understand what you are saying here better now that I realize we are not talking about religion, but very specifically about the belief of a god.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 1 characters.

[Lotharr]

Because I don't believe there is a god, while still acknowledging that there is a possibility. (Agnostic Atheism)

That's what I am. In this case, you are not exactly an atheist.

I understand what you are saying here better now that I realize we are not talking about religion, but very specifically about the belief of a god

Indeed. Religion and theism are two different things. Even antitheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism) and antireligion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion) are two different things.

[Jedicake]

How is the world fucked up?

And why are you proud to be atheist?

Wow... Are you blind?

War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, poverty, torture, crime, corruption.

If God exists then hes doing a shitty job, and don't answer to me "Man made it this way." That's a bullshit circular answer

and I'm proud to be an Atheist simply because I'm not a Theist :lmao:

I use rational thinking without some holy book telling people what to believe in

[Seriousbisnis]

Atheist. There is to many flaws in religion. Some say religion is a peaceful and fantastic, but it has caused more bigotry, homophobia and war then anything else in todays world.

[Gloomrender]

sounds like the very sloppy thinking of a petulant brat to me, but i'll leave the Record for those who read it to decide

You copy what I said many pages ago. Your true intentions bleed out, you have no inclination towards a serious weighing of evidence. You just want to lash out like the 8 year old type personality you are. I think anyone reading how you write and your choice of language will see that very clearly. Go ahead and deny it, you can't edit it all away. :D


you are including areas which i did not specify, now aren't you...that's making unfounded assumptions and extrapolating things not said from a simple and very specific statement

again, another example of a very inept thought process on your part,

You're retarded. Your statement meant exactly what it meant, it was a broad, sweeping statement. If you wanted it to mean something else, you should have chose your fucking words more carefully, dumbass.


so for all your whining, you still won't show your proof...these "pages and pages"

your choice, child (gotta love the guy who uses no punctuation and bad grammar calling other people child like)...i've already said numerous times i am more than happy to look at it for serious consideration on multiple occasions in this thread...you scream you have it, but won't show it....you are as bad as any theist in this matter as far as i am concerned

you keep making claims of factual infallibility, yet never produce said facts when asked....gg indeed

All too predictable. :rolleyes: You say early on that you won't accept anything but a fairy autopsy, and then when I reciprocate by not giving you other evidence, you take a 180, and then you whine, that I'm not giving proof, that I can't give you...just to try and look good. Well Sarah Palin, you just look fucking stupid. Do give everyone a good laugh by denying it, since here you were dumb enough to reiterate your fairy autopsy standard of evidence, by saying "factual infallibility" is all you will accept (in other words, perfect evidence that I and nobody can provide). Way to fucking fail in your deception and look like a jackass in the process.

Anyway, the record is straight, all you can do is make bullshit apologetic spins and denials now, and nobody on the forum really cares anyway. You can talk to yourself. Fuck off.

[DocGonzo]

You copy what I said many pages ago. Your true intentions bleed out, you have no inclination towards a serious weighing of evidence. You just want to lash out like the 8 year old type personality you are. I think anyone reading how you write and your choice of language will see that very clearly. Go ahead and deny it, you can't edit it all away. :D

oh?

as you like, i asked for what you had, without prejudice, to look at it in case there something i've missed....no more, no less...you stated you had "pages of it"...really is just that simple


You're retarded. Your statement meant exactly what it meant, it was a broad, sweeping statement. If you wanted it to mean something else, you should have chose your fucking words more carefully, dumbass.

i said what i meant, if you think something is unclear, fair enough...ask rather than bitch, k?


All too predictable. :rolleyes: You say early on that you won't accept anything but a fairy autopsy, and then when I reciprocate by not giving you other evidence, you take a 180, and then you whine, that I'm not giving proof, that I can't give you...just to try and look good. Well Sarah Palin, you just look fucking stupid. Do give everyone a good laugh by denying it, since here you were dumb enough to reiterate your fairy autopsy standard of evidence, by saying "factual infallibility" is all you will accept (in other words, perfect evidence that I and nobody can provide). Way to fucking fail in your deception and look like a jackass in the process.

if you are confused, read it again...you are injecting way too much drama in this, have a valium of something

Anyway, the record is straight, all you can do is make bullshit apologetic spins and denials now, and nobody on the forum really cares anyway. You can talk to yourself. Fuck off.

<3 you too...

the record is indeed right here, and i'm fine with that...you should watch that blood pressure, it's not good for you...

(quick edit to fix a broken quote tag)

[Tithan Natus]

Glad to see you guys are keeping this thread alive. You can get a lot more posts if you separate each little conversation into its own post instead of one mega post. Don't follow that advice.

[Lando]

actually, i think you would find that agnostics are the honest ones who say "fuck if i know"

anyone who claims anything metaphysical as a matter of certainty is either self deluded or just plain simple minded

oh yes, and poll fails for lack of bewbz option

that's it. hail eris. :D

[88Chaz88]

Who the fuck cares?

[Tithan Natus]

Who the fuck cares?

I thought these kinds of posts were reserved for the beginning of a thread, before it actually gets too serious.

[88Chaz88]

I thought these kinds of posts were reserved for the beginning of a thread, before it actually gets too serious.

Well I wasn't here at the beginning of the thread so I'm saying my piece now.

[PirateGlen]

I thought these kinds of posts were reserved for the beginning of a thread, before it actually gets too serious.

He wants to be sure everyone knows he's an idiot, including the people who only read the ends of threads.

[88Chaz88]

He wants to be sure everyone knows he's an idiot, including the people who only read the ends of threads.

Yes, because refusing to argue about something that doesn't matter makes me an idiot.

Oh and as for only reading the first and last post, we've had at least 5 threads on the same thing in my time if there was anything that makes this one different then please point it out and I will admit defeat.

[Tithan Natus]

Who the fuck cares?

Yes, because refusing to argue about something that doesn't matter makes me an idiot.

Oh and as for only reading the first and last post, we've had at least 5 threads on the same thing in my time if there was anything that makes this one different then please point it out and I will admit defeat.

So why didn't you just not post anything in this thread, instead of asking an extremely useless and rude question?

[88Chaz88]

So why didn't you just not post anything in this thread, instead of asking an extremely useless and rude question?

To boost post count.

Plus I was bored.

[Tithan Natus]

To boost post count.

Plus I was bored.

Why do you care about post count?

I understand the boredom though.

[Bosemann]

Yes, because refusing to argue about something that doesn't matter makes me an idiot.

Oh and as for only reading the first and last post, we've had at least 5 threads on the same thing in my time if there was anything that makes this one different then please point it out and I will admit defeat.

You've accidentally contributed to the topic. By telling us the you don't care about the question, you fit yourself into a specific type of agnostic :ninja:

[88Chaz88]

You've accidentally contributed to the topic. By telling us the you don't care about the question, you fit yourself into a specific type of agnostic :ninja:

I completely agree but don't talk too loudly, let others figure it out for themselves.

[Rimayven]

what is the best atheistic religion out there?

EDIT: Any religion out there that will allow me to acquire some kind of sexy superpowers (in my lifetime)?

[Miah Farrowe]

Where is the agnostic option?

Where's the "Bewbz" option?

[Aacevedo]

meh

[Dark Lily]

meh

Finally, a post I can agree on.

[KoomValley]

Where's the "Bewbz" option?

Of course, some of us worship bewbz around here.

[Navicerts]

awww...didums lil bwain get hurt?

bring me a dead fairy and i'll believe in them after the autopsy and some tests

comb all dimension in the multiverse and not find anything resembling the description of one and i'll say they don't exist

fair enough?

So anything imaginable *might* exist, seems fair enough to me. I choose to believe that [any random thing imaginable] doesn't exists but accept that I might be proven wrong later, and I call myself an atheist. But aren't those the same philosophies pretty much?

[DocGonzo]

So anything imaginable *might* exist, seems fair enough to me. I choose to believe that [any random thing imaginable] doesn't exists but accept that I might be proven wrong later, and I call myself an atheist. But aren't those the same philosophies pretty much?

afaik, the difference is certitude