[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 25 KB, 570x427, confusedchild.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2435233 No.2435233 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR8ULZV9GiQ

Turns out that the pope of atheism isn't such an atheist himself.

Intellectually checkmated.
Video is required viewing.

>> No.2435243

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS

>> No.2435240

A 'shockofgod' video? Really?

0/10

Agnostic = Knowledge
Atheism/Theism = Belief

Fail. Fail hard.

>> No.2435249

I won't even click.

Can we agree to take the internet atheists vs the internet theists to /sci/ and leave literature to /lit/? Holy shit, there are like 4 threads on it already on the first page. Ease your butts, stop orbiting this and go have sex.

>> No.2435248

I wish you faggots would shut the fuck up and go back to r/atheism.

You make me ashamed to be atheist.

>> No.2435251

>>2435240

Religion = Belief/Faith
Agnostic = Confused Children
Atheism = An Opinion

>> No.2435255

>>2435233

Dawkins has always said that he believes that it is extremely unlikely that a god exists, but that he could not say that a god absolutely does not exist.

All he has done is use the proper terminology for once.

>> No.2435256

>>2435251
Definitions of words are hard aren't they, child.

>> No.2435257

>>2435249

>>>/sci/4405042

It has been done.

>> No.2435267

>>2435257
Damn it, then just go fuck yourself and stop polluting the boards. You are not making anyone think.

sage

hide

and fuck who answers this shit

>> No.2435271

>>2435251
He always said he was an agnostic atheist, there is no surprise here. It would be stupid for him not to be. Slowpoke as fuck or failed for the propaganda of those who oppose him.

sage shitty thread

>> No.2435275

All this trite boring argumental shit about religion aside.

How fucking inconsiderate for the safety of other road users do you have to be to do something like this while driving. I know he's not holding the camera but he sure as fucking fuck isn't fully concentrating on what he's doing. He could not only kill his ignorant self but any other fucker he crashes into.
What a bastard.

Carry on.

>> No.2435314

eat shit atheists, shockofgod owned yall

>> No.2435332

http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/10/sNDZb0KtJDk

>> No.2435348

sage

>> No.2435352
File: 270 KB, 580x461, 1320065081830..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2435352

> mfw i watched that video.

>> No.2435356
File: 2 KB, 292x65, file01.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2435356

>> No.2435361

>>2435251
no
you're stupid

>> No.2435365

>>2435352
What the fuck does that image mean? Is that good or bad?
Are you implying it put you to sleep because he didn't have wacky animations to accompany his voice?

>> No.2435367

An agnostic is an atheist. If you admit you don't know, you still do not believe. To actively disbelieve is not a condition of atheism.

"Do you believe in string theory?"
"I don't know what string theory is."

If you place this conversation in a yes/no context, the answer is this person does not believe in string theory because they don't even know what it is. They're agnostic on string theory and thus do not believe in it.

Even the person who says "But I don't have an opinion one way or the other," is still a person who does not believe. They have chosen neither to believe nor to disbelieve, but the simple fact is that to believe is an act, yet to disbelieve only requires that you do not do the act of believing.

An agnostic and an atheist hold the same fundamental skepticism, the latter simply asserts it further than the former.

>> No.2435371

agnosticism = atheism.

>> No.2435374

>>2435367
You aren't admitting you don't know dumbass. You're saying there is no possible way to know anything about gods whether they exist or not. You can be and agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.
Agnosticism isn't a set of beliefs per se.

>> No.2435375

>>2435367
>If you place this conversation in a yes/no context, the answer is this person does not believe in string theory because they don't even know what it is. They're agnostic on string theory and thus do not believe in it
I'm not sure that's true. Surely you could say "I am not informed enough about string theory to be able to say whether it does or does not exist, therefore I neither believe nor disbelieve in it"

>> No.2435377

>>2435371
>>2435367
SOMEBODY didn't watch the video.
www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup#p/u/10/sNDZb0KtJDk

>> No.2435380

People are wrong on the internet all the time and they will complain you don't join the debate.

I find peace in hiding shitty threads. It's the hardest choice, but it has to be done

sage
hide

>> No.2435382

>>2435251
i disagree are you saying being open minded and undogmatic is childish? imo atheism is childish, possibly even more so than having faith.

sage because indeed this thread is pretty stupid.

>> No.2435383

OP, few points:

1) Dawkins isn't the pope of atheism. There is no "pope" of atheism, it isn't an organized entity. It's just a group of individuals that don't believe in a god.

2) Dawkins is a wise man, you can never know if a god doesn't exist. He's clearly refuted the Christian God and other religions.

3) Being agnostic is not mutually exclusive to being atheist. You could believe there isn't a god, but at the same time say you just don't know. He's smart to not make a claim he can't support.

4) This isn't a refutation to atheism or any sort of checkmate. Dawkins's life was dedicated to attacking religious institutions, and he's not going back to one.

He's an intellectual who knows that strong atheism isn't empirically verifiable. He's just subscribing to a more humble POV: implicit/agnostic atheism.

Now go back to your normal lives of hating people with different beliefs.

>> No.2435389

>>2435374
>agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.
You don't understand why these are nonsense terms?

"I don't know what I don't believe in God."

"I don't know that I do believe in God."

"I don't believe that I don't know about God."

"I do believe what I don't know about God."

>>2435375
>To actively disbelieve is not a condition of atheism.
>They have chosen neither to believe nor to disbelieve, but the simple fact is that to believe is an act, yet to disbelieve only requires that you do not do the act of believing.

>> No.2435391

>>2435383
>Dawkins's life was dedicated to attacking religious institutions, and he's not going back to one.
Why doesn't he attack islam then? Fucking pussy!

>> No.2435393

>>2435389
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

>> No.2435396

>>2435391
He already did in one of his documentaries.

>> No.2435402

>>2435391
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r018ohLUuL4&feature=fvst

Dawkins has spoken against the acts of Islam before, this is just the first Youtube link in the search "richard dawkins against muslim"

>> No.2435406

>>2435389

You misunderstand the phrases:

"I don't believe in a god, but I can never actually know" and "I do believe in a god, but I can never
actually know" are agnostic statements.

>> No.2435407

>>2435393
This doesn't contradict what I'm saying, it's just a basic definition of agnostic and atheist slapped together as if they're not two different points entirely. An agnostic who says it's unknowable but then decides to believe has practically cast their lot in with the gnostics, that they're willing to say inside their head that they think it's unknowable doesn't much matter. They've chosen to believe, and so they do know what they do believe, and they do believe what they think they know, i.e. not the existence of god, but the probability of god's existence being "likelier." If they didn't believe that they think they know this point, why would they believe it at all?

>> No.2435415

>>2435406
I understand the phrases perfectly fine, my point is the relationship of the parts of the phrases is misunderstood by people who use them together as if atheism-agnostic-theism is a spectrum: I'm 65% atheist, but that makes me pretty much agnostic, and then there's that 15% I'm theist.
The dichotomy of knowledge and belief doesn't work like that.

>> No.2435420

>>2435415

Is that 65%-15% thing what you actually believe personally, or an example of human stupidity to support your point that this atheist-theist-agnostic spectrum is bullshit?

I got a bit lost with how your structured your statement.

>> No.2435434

Hey edgy atheists such as behemoth, watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvlLMVhZyZU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rFJWizTyNk

>> No.2435441

>>2435420
>Is that 65%-15% thing what you actually believe personally, or an example of human stupidity
I wouldn't call it stupidity, I think it's closer to cognitive dissonance or a lack of serious thought on the matter, but the second one. I believe I'm an atheist because I'm agnostic, it's not some sort of lateral shift, it's a causation. I don't know, and because I don't know, I don't believe. I'm agnostic: why would I live my life as if it's possibly true there is a God? This is why I think the term "agnostic theist" is nonsensical: you're telling me this person seriously throws up their hands and says "Nope! I have no idea!" and yet still goes through the practices and behaviors of a religion or at least some spiritual guidelines?
The only loophole I see in this is Deim and pantheism, and these on a practical level can become pretty moot points: if you don't believe this God gives a damn, it's not going to make you act as if there is one, either.

I'm not coming at this from some sort of esoteric epistemological theory. I'm talking about the practical aspects of faith and knowledge. If you're acting on faith, thus believing, then you're still putting a pretty heavy bet on the knowledge.

>> No.2435705

>>2435367
>An agnostic is an atheist.

Agnostics aren't arrogant cunts, who like all "established religions," community or church wise, main goals are to push their beliefs on others.

>> No.2435712
File: 8 KB, 216x195, 1330216643100.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2435712

so the secret is to not give a fuck at all, you see

>> No.2435717

>>2435705
Neither are atheists...


Agnostics are just fence sitters. People who refuse to accept further evidence that could render them suspect to their theistic friends. Poor folk. I feel for em.

>> No.2436056

Choke on this atheists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5Xn9X6xtU&feature=related

>> No.2436082

>>2435717
i really don't understand this whole concept of agnostics as being wishy washy. why must belief be so linear? it is not black and white imo. it's just as valid an opinion as believing or not believing. While I understand it is a matter of faith, as an agnostic it seems almost arrogant and dogmatic for anyone to believe that there is no god of any sort, or that there is most definately a god and that everyone who doesn't believe that is wrong.
am I wishy washy for not presuming to understand things which I believe are objectively not understandable in this life?

>> No.2436101
File: 41 KB, 345x344, 1325892809516.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436101

He joined the agnostic master race.

I'm fine with this

>> No.2436119
File: 10 KB, 325x310, 1211341621280.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436119

>>2436082
They believe they CAN'T know. Indeed shouldn't even think about it. They will perpetuate the theistic propaganda (Like evolution being still just a theory) and let their kids fall prey to the ignorance of theism.
>it seems almost arrogant and dogmatic for anyone to believe that there is no god of any sort
Again, it is a logic problem. Isn't there a Cthulhu? Of course there is! There MUST BE. Why? How? Same difference. Exactly. The burden of proof is on the believer. This is not atheist dogma. Is there a god?

How about I put a number on it.
There's a 5% chance in some kind of spirituality. God or immortal soul. 5%. You can believe in this and call yourself whatever you want.

I hate these threads

>> No.2436133

>>2435717

Fence sitters? HAH!

Feel the might of my PURE, UNCOMPROMISED, SCIENTIFIC APPROACH to the question of God!

Really though, most agnostics who put time into thinking about it (especially departing from theism or atheism) make the realization that it's not fair to proclaim that there either is or is not a God without the necessary information. And what you're diagnosing is indifference, a trait agnostics sometimes have. The trouble is that you're addressing what you feel isn't a worthwhile attitude about the question of theism. You're not addressing the actual merits of the argument. I, like most people, am irritated by fundamentalists of any sort, but if I'm argue God with them, I can't reference my beef with their attitude as an actual point.

>> No.2436140

>it seems almost arrogant and dogmatic for anyone to believe that there is no god of any sort

>it seems almost arrogant and dogmatic for anyone to believe that there are no ghosts of any
sort

>>it seems almost arrogant and dogmatic for anyone to believe that there are no unicorns of any sort

why would it exist?

>> No.2436151

What is wrong with you people?

>> No.2436155

>>2436119
I think you have a skewed perspective of an agnostic. in my view, an agonstic is one who does know if there is a god, and is open to their being one, and is open to their not being one. this does not mean they are invested in that remaining the case, but as a pragmatic approach to the state of things as they are. if there were to come up some sort of conclusive evidence that I believed, than sure I would change my views. I am not opposed to that, and would indeed embrace it, prossibly more so than an athiest presented with evidence of a god, or a theist presented with evidence that there is no god.

also yr MUST BE a cthulua thing makes no sense to me, sorry. Agnostics are not people who believe there MUST BE something because it can't be refuted.

for hating these threads you sure do care/expend enough energy on them.

>> No.2436159

>>2436140
i don't really think the allusions yr making are truly equal.

>> No.2436169

>>2435233
Dawkins has always said this. He's still an atheist, as he doesn't believe in god, but he has clarified his position, saying he does not believe but he also does not know.

And he's not the pope of atheism, he was just the first person to realize how much cash he could make by writing a book by pandering to large but untapped audience of atheists who need to read something about how awesome their lack of belief is.

>> No.2436170
File: 113 KB, 400x300, otters.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436170

>>2436133
Behind a door on the moon sits god.
>Me: No there isn't. We've even been to the moon, and nobody found a door
>You: Yes there is.
There's could be a door on the moon. We may find a door on the moon. Open it already. Go on.

>am irritated by fundamentalists of any sort
If an atheist bombs a building or kills in the name of ....Dawkins or whatever, I'll be the first to condemn. Don't you worry about that

>> No.2436177

do you think if super atheists took lsd they would chill out and stop being huge avangelical (see what i did there) assholes?

or would dawkins just trip out and not understand what he was experiencing and be a broken shell of an old, sad, angry man

>> No.2436178

>>2436155
>I think you have a skewed perspective of an agnostic.
>in my view, an agonstic is one who does know if there is a god, and is open to their being one...
Ah no. That's a theist indeterminate as to what religion to follow
An agnostic thinks there MAY or my not be a god.

>> No.2436187

>>2436177
If an atheist comes to your door pushing their ideas on you, I'll be the first to...

There is no Santa Clause. Face the facts kiddo

>> No.2436193

>>2436170

>If an atheist bombs a building or kills in the name of ....Dawkins or whatever, I'll be the first to condemn. Don't you worry about that

Let me know when an agnostic does that, and I'll give you a pass for being irritated at their attitudes.

And yes, there could be a door on the moon behind which sits God. I wouldn't know. Nobody would. It might be invisible. My incredulity at that idea stems from the fact that we've already been there, and we ought to know. The difference between that silly idea and God in general is that God doesn't have to occupy any one physical/metaphysical aspect that would cause us to disbelieve. God could exist in some purely different form that we wouldn't even possess the mental faculties to imagine, and that idea causes God to be less unappealing than unicorns. But our incredulity towards God and mythic creatures and silly scenarios like the one you mentioned has nothing to do with whether or not they exist, and that's what matters. I still don't know whether unicorns exist, and I accept that, and you don't know that God doesn't exist, and you're hiding that fact behind these roundabout arguments.

>> No.2436197

The atheistic image of Dawkins has now been obliterated. He's just another God-fearing agnostic.

>> No.2436211

ITT people don't know how to clarify binary talk of knowing/not knowing something with talk of the probability one is willing to assign something. Atheists = set a reasonable bar for knowledge, of course we're not 100% certain but we still know god doesn't exist. Agnostics = we have to say we don't know unless we're 100% certain.

/thread

>> No.2436212

>>2436178
Oh im sorry I meant to type "does NOT know if there is a god, but is open to their being one."

my post you just replied to has more sentences than the one you addressed.

>> No.2436219

>>2436211
just so you know I have this weird tick where I immediately lose all respect for someone if they think they somehow "solve" a thread.

>> No.2436232

>>2436219
I don't like fence sitters.

>> No.2436235

>>2436211

>Atheists = set a reasonable bar for knowledge, of course we're not 100% certain but we still know god doesn't exist. Agnostics = we have to say we don't know unless we're 100% certain.

I hate to get into the semantics of these definitions, but you would think that an atheist who assigns a 5% chance of there being a God is not an atheist, at least not in the strong sense. He would be admitting, "there may be a God". Which is why well known atheists like Dawkins can say what he just said, apparently - clarifying that technically, they're not atheists. They're open, at least to some degree, to the idea of God existing. How much is irrelevant, I would say.

Also, I don't think knowledge behaves the same way with God as it does for other subjects. We can't apply the likes of reasonable doubt here, because God is inherently an unknowable subject. Everything we "know" about the subject is assigned by man.

>> No.2436241

>>2436193
I'm irritated at these stupid threads where theists, agnostics and trolls pick of a decent man. I normally steer clear of them.
>Now believes in Lunar doors
>Hol-lee sheeyt

>>2436211
/Thread!

>> No.2436249
File: 333 KB, 565x427, shitjustgotrealfordawkins.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436249

Shit just got real!

After many years of trying to figure it out, Dawkins finally managed to understand how Pascal's Wager works!

>> No.2436250

>>2436235
As open as I am open to being slapped by a big pink ocean wave in the shape of a cartoon hand, and then shitting out a bunch of little tiny talking Thors. Yeah... I guess that's possible.

>> No.2436263

>>2436249
Such a cowardly thing to base your life, indeed society on.

If a god did exist, I would have a good long talk with the shit head. An absentee father deserves no respect whatsoever.

>> No.2436261

>>2436250

If we're going to enter the realm of mysticism, it certainly is. No matter how silly it sounds.

>> No.2436265
File: 153 KB, 364x415, go.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436265

>This thread
>>>/b/

>> No.2436268

>>2435233
Wow, why do you have to approve all comments?

It's pretty pathetic that you can't take constructive criticism and approve only comments you like.

>> No.2436267

>>2436249
Pascal's Wager is meaningless.

It's amusing to watch people get so buttmad over atheism as though anybody's actually arguing that there is definitely not any deity and we know this with 100% certainty.

>> No.2436275

>>2436261
Christianity and all the rest are mysticism.

>Just saw the video.
You're the shit on he bike!
HAHAHAHAHA

>> No.2436284

>>2436268
That's a Christian for you.

>> No.2436289

>>2436275

What exactly is your problem, dude? I'm trying to actually talk about this. Don't be an asshole.

>> No.2436309

>>2436235
There are plenty of theists who simply have a faith, and believe that we can never know for an absolute certainty if it's true. In fact I'd argue that the majority of theists choose to believe but admit that they cannot be absolutely certain. Should we refuse to refer to these people as theists?

It's much more practical to define theism and atheism both as a spectrum of belief, and gnosticism and agnosticism as the axis of knowledge - you'd quickly find that there are comparatively few gnostic theists or gnostic atheists, and most people currently identifying as agnostics would be agnostic atheists.

>> No.2436311
File: 101 KB, 394x500, 3174469712_b8961fa398.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2436311

sage

>> No.2436315

>>2436311
Butthurt atheist detected!


BUMP!

>> No.2436328

>>2436289
Fine. Disregard the latter, but all theism is mysticism

>>2436315
More likely a /lit/erate. Bug off

Everyone bug off

>> No.2436331

>>2436309

That's fair, I suppose. But creating dual roles for both belief and knowledge is, of course, just one way to approach it. I usually just go strictly with knowledge if I'm trying to discuss it with an atheist, because, as they're usually men of science, "belief" really ought not have anything to do with it. But I understand your point.

>> No.2436333

>>2436328

Okay. We're cool, then.

>> No.2436335

Belief, as they say, is not wanting to know.


I have faith. I have faith in trustworthy people.
There is no door on the moon. Doors were invented on Earth, just like god.

>> No.2436338

what the hell is wrong with you Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ, sometimes youre okay, but there are times like this when youre on your period and being kind of annoying

>> No.2436342

Is the concept of knowledge v. Belief that difficult for people to grasp?
The gnostic/agnostic portion of someone's beliefs is separate from the theistic/atheistic portion. The first part s simply making a claim to knowledge (I KNOW ___ v. I DO NOT know ___) while the second part has to do with what you do with said knowledge. In this case that is one's beliefs.
Being agnostic neither forces someone into a state of disbelief nor excludes that possibility. In the case of agnostic atheism as seems to be the discussion point here, it is a statement of "I do not claim to have absolute knowledge on the matter, but I do not believe that there is a god".
This has always been the case with Dawkins, there is absolutely nothing new here.

We could get into straight up agnosticism, but that is almost a special case. I half-wish we had a special term for people who honestly do not believe one way or another. True Agnostic, maybe, but that would only be because I can't help but see this spectrum as a D&D-style alignment chart.

>> No.2436359

>>2436331
Sure, I can agree with that. But the problem is that the very question of a deity's existence has nothing to do with science or knowledge - it's deliberately unfalsifiable and designed to inspire faith to begin with (faith being precisely the opposite of knowledge). The reason people tend to identify as atheist is because they take particular objection not to the notion of a god, but to real religions; that is to say that most atheists are actually agnostics, but the philosophical arguments are so disconnected from the faiths we see in the world around us that it doesn't seem terribly relevant to approach the two in the same way.

To understand what I mean, you can look at pretty much any famous atheist and a lot of agnostics as well; Richard Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein... They all confess to have no certain knowledge one way or the other of god, but regardless of certainty everybody has their own opinions, and all of these men believed that religion was incorrect. Yet they identify differently, and it's precisely because of this issue. That's why I think it's much more realistic to describe ourselves along two separate axes: theism/atheism for belief, gnosticism/agnosticism for knowledge.

>> No.2436379

>>2436338
This thread was designed to annoy.
I guess I respond now out of a little boredom.
Not sure how you disagree with me so I'll leave it

Hopeful sage

>> No.2437079

The majority of you sound 15 years old, stop trying to sound like elegant little unique butterflies you kids.

>> No.2437088

>>2435717

No matter what's said there will never be proof of their not a god unless we come in contact with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that can tell us so and at that point we will have just met god. Theists will always have this fact on you no matter what because as you have nothing they have the eye witness accounts of their ancestors, ancestors who had the same mental power as modern day humans.

>> No.2437108

Why to theists think agnostics aren't atheists, christians assume that just because agnostics aren't AS hostile as atheists that they must be on their side. they are not. agnostics are not on the side of christianity. someone stating they are an agnostic and not an atheist is not a win for you guys. Carl sagan was a self professed agnostic and hated religion as much as any of the atheist horsemen.Christians really are scraping at the bottom of the barrel for reinforcement.

also, the fuck is this on /lit/? lit is meant to be above /sci/ nonsense

>> No.2437123

I'm a Catholic and I don't like the guy in the video or Richard Dawkins.

People should be free to find their own faith without ridicule or restraint; even if that is a lack of faith. This isn't major news. People need to be more accepting, it's 2012.

I believe everyone should read the Bible, if they want to read literature though, too many references to be missed out on. Just a side note to anyone that hasn't.

>> No.2437229

>>2436338
>what the hell is wrong with you Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ, sometimes youre okay, but there are times like this when youre on your period and being kind of annoying

He's a shit-tier tripfag acting like the idiot he is.

>sometime youre okay

lol, no.