/sci/ - Science & Math

If evolution is true, then how did the moon get there? Can you explain that? You can't. How did it get there?

OP can't explain how the moon got it. How'd it get here? Can you explain it to me? C'mon. Why doesn't Venus or Mars have one, pinhead?

>>2479910
and why do we have it and Mars doesn't?

>>2479910
>>2479913
>>2479914
I fuckin' lol'd

>>2479913
>>2479914
>>2479910

>>2479902
You know what, you're desperate.
Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication.

we have the moon because back in time when the world was still similar to molten lava/magma, a chunk of it broke off and became the moon.

>>2479947
A chunk of the earth broke off? So the earth just breaks into pieces now? Since when does that happen? Why doesn't it still happen? Your idea has so many holes in it it hurts. You're so desperate because you're scared to accept a non-scientific answer. C'mon, pinhead, give me a break.

>>2479947
Ok you know what, you're desperate. Were you there? How do you know that's what happened? You don't know that, you don't know how the moon got there. You're making just as big a leap of faith as we are. But our faith is backed by facts, and yours is pure speculation. How did the moon really get there?

>A chunk of the earth broke off?
no no, it was BEFORE the earth cooled down and "hardened into a rock".

>You're so desperate because you're scared to accept a non-scientific answer.

I'm agnostic, I believe there CAN be a God, and a God MAY exist, I just don't believe in him because we can't truely know.

so I'm not syaing religion is wrong, I just use what we know from science to make theories to explain stuff.
bad terminology, but it explains the concept well.

>Ok you know what, you're desperate. Were you there? How do you know that's what happened? You don't know that, you don't know how the moon got there. You're making just as big a leap of faith as we are. But our faith is backed by facts, and yours is pure speculation. How did the moon really get there?

I'm basing it off of scientific theories.

but bro, I aint even mad.

why can't we just all get along and believe whatever?

>>2479962
There's no such thing as being simply agnostic.
> I just don't believe in him
>don't believe in him
>don't believe

You're an atheist.

>>2479962
I was quoting exactly what you said. "A chunk of the it broke off" and then when confronted with how ridiculous that sounds, you immediately backpedal to "no no" and then start stammering incomprehensibly. Sounds pretty desperate to me. Funny how that apparently happened to the earth, but no other planet, hmm? And the fact that no other planet has life? And how the tides just go in and out everyday in a perfect pattern. How did the moon get there? C'mon, you pinheads are so desperate to explain this. How did the sun get there? How did it get there?

>You're an atheist.

I'm agnostic,
but yes, I'm atheist by default.

but I don't deny the possible existence like most atheists.

>>2479978
Most atheists don't deny the possible existence.

>>2479975
There's no point in asking this guy, he doesn't know how the moon got there, so how would he know how the sun got there? He doesn't know why the tide comes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication. This guy's "evolution" can't explain a thing.

>>2479978
Also:
>he thinks the earth broke in half to create the moon

>I was quoting exactly what you said. "A chunk of the it broke off"

I'm not sure what the actual terminology was, I learned it last year.

>and then when confronted with how ridiculous that sounds, you immediately backpedal to "no no" and then start stammering incomprehensibly.

>what I do.

>Sounds pretty desperate to me. Funny how that apparently happened to the earth, but no other planet, hmm?

Other planets have moons.

>And the fact that no other planet has life?

You wouldn't beleive how many other planets there are out there, we literally can't comprehend it. I believe there is life somewhere, we just can't find it because of the distance.

>And how the tides just go in and out everyday in a perfect pattern. How did the moon get there?

go back to high school and take a physics lesson. it explains everything.

>C'mon, you pinheads are so desperate to explain this.

We;re basing it off of theory.

>How did the sun get there? How did it get there?

Get a physics lesson online,. bro.

I'm not being sarcastic. Find something on youtube.

>>2479902

Why are you linking to a copy of the original video? Link to DonExodus2's.

Checkmate, evolutionists.

The O'Reilly impersonator is hilarious.

>>2479994
Right, you learned it last year. And you don't know the exact termonology but you believe it anyway. So let me get this straight. You have no idea what you're talking and can't explain it for yourself, but you believe it because someone told you it was true. Sounds EXACTLY like religion bro. Except I have a 2000 year old text in my favor.

>get a physics lesson

Right, so when I confront you with a question, you tell me to find it out for myself. So basically you don't know. That's all I wanted to hear.

>>2479994
>I'm not sure what the actual terminology was, I learned it last year.
Oh yea? Last year huh? Well I have a book written 2000 years ago that gives a better explanation for how the moon got there pinhead.

>>2480002
>>2480005

Haha, we posted pretty much the same thing. Great minds think alike, bro. Great minds.

This guy is a pinhead. He has no idea how it all got here.

>>2480005
>Well I have a book written 2000 years ago

This is what christfags actually believe

Atheists belief there is no God, while agnosts, being the most wise, say there is no way of knowing there is a God. So atheists are not the same as agnosts.

>>2480002
>>2480005
Y'know, even if we ignore the fact that the book in question was fiction/a falsehood created as a tool to control other people, there's still the fact that it's way out of date.

>>2480013
Does O'Reilly not know how to spell agnostic?

you're right, I barely remember.

I'm just using what I can.

I'm not trying to say religion is wrong. I just don't believe in it.

>Sounds EXACTLY like religion bro.

not really. Mine are based on the physics we know toda, while yours was written 2000 years ago by people who thought the world was flat.
do you think the world is flat?

the reason they thought that was ebcause they based it off of what they observed.

they didn't feel like they were moving, so they thought the earth must be the center because everything looks like it's moving around them.

>>2480018
And even under the assumption that everything you just said is bullshit, you can't explain to me how the moon got there? How did it get there? How did the sun get there? You pinheads are so desperate. Why don't mars and venus have one?

>pinhead
>pinhead
>pinhead
>pinhead
>pinhead
>pinhead

you're either a troll or really ignorant.

anyone else think this is a troll thread? it really seems like it.

>>2480027
>based on physics

No, it's based on people telling you it's physics, and you believing it simply because someone told it to you. If you don't understand it for yourself or can explain how it works, that's no different from believing it on heresay. You can't explain how the sun got it, and saying "lol physics!" isn't any better than me saying God did it (spoiler alert: God did it)

>>2480039
>implying you're not a desperate pinhead.

>>2480040
well... yeah you *can* say that

however that's ignoring the fact that all of the theories and ideas we have about the natural world are based off of physical laws that we have determined through experimentation

>>2480031
Mars has two though.

>>2480039
WHAT?!

THIS?!

A TROLL THREAD?!

WHAAAAAAT?!?!?!?!

Haha I'm gonna stop the O'Reilly impersonating because I'm pretty sure Jonny actually believes it.

But he still failed to explain how the moon got there.

>You can't explain how the sun got it, and saying "lol physics!" isn't any better than me saying God did it

I'm not saying religion is wrong.
ertneatmetameamaemj4q5jkw456m,

>>2480002
>>2480002

>2000 year old text

sorry to burst your bubble, but the bible you read was compiled past 400AD, ample time to fuck it up

>>2480055
The Moon is simply the physical representation of the moon goddess Luna. It's there because she wants to be there.

>>2480040
There's a difference between believing someone when they offer a well structured logical argument and believing someone when they read from a "2000 year old" book.

However I agree with you that you must try things for yourself and ALWAYS QUESTION WHAT YOU ARE TOLD

I'm just going to leave this thread

No scientist fully accepts any theory, as any scientist knows that anything can be disproven with the addition of new data. Evolution is our best theory at the moment, but the same could be said of gravity in the past. Until we were able to examine its effects on a quantum level, it seemed right. Now it looks like it's missing something. Well we know evolution is missing things, so it'd be foolish to believe that current evolutionary theory is the end all be all. Even without those holes, full acceptance of evolution would kill all your scientific non-bias when looking at things that involve evolution. Again, physics shows us this. Some of our most brilliant minds is history have come up with ideas with no evidence just because it makes sense with something they're SO SURE MUST BE TRUE without enough evidence to support it. Was it Issac Newton that was so sure that the universe had to have the undiscovered force of antigravity to keep the universe from imploding in on itself because he got drawn into accepting "facts" about the universe based on misconceptions about what HAD TO BE TRUE?

before I go, you're right.

I SHOULD question everything.

I've never left the US, so who am I to believe that my country isn't just played inside a little bubble, and other countries are just fake images?

>>2480031
Actually, Mars does have a pair of moons.....or a pair of large asteroids orbiting it, I am not sure which. I just know that it has a pair of large satellites, and that the satellites are significant enough to have their own names.

I'm no astrophysicist, but I can say for sure that the sun came into being just like every other star did, and that the moon was a small planet without a solar orbit that once crashed into the Earth. As they separated after the collision, the planet lost most of its matter, which was then claimed by the Earths gravity. What matter remained reformed into the moon. By sheer coincidence, the moon was moving at the correct velocity such that it would enter an orbit around the Earth.

Now, as a non-astrophysicist, that's probably not the best description that could be given, but it should be good enough for anyone who isn't a retard, a fundamentalist or a troll.

Problem, needlebrain?

>>2479913

>>2479973
Atheism: The belief there are no gods
Agnosticism: The belief that the question of whether gods exist or not is unanswerable
Theism: The belief gods exist

o reilly troll, o reilly is the perfect example of why this species is bound for extinction

>>2480089
No, agnosticism goes strictly to knowledge or the lack thereof, not belief.

You're either a theist/deist or atheist, there's no way around it

>>2480074
>Well we know evolution is missing things

What things?

>>2480089

If you think a question is unanswerable, do you have more in common with those who think the question is spurious, or those who think the question is answered?

Agnostics and atheists are massively closer to one another than either one is to deists or theists. I would go so far as to say that the difference is political. You say atheist if you want to take a harder stance on the ludicrous nature of the discussion, or against the abhorrent teachings in religion, while you say agnostic if you want to troll other atheists or pander to theists.

>>2480117
Links, apparently.

ITT: 15 year old "agnostic intellectual" falls for the most base trolling I've ever witnessed on this website. Which is...par for the course as far as 15 year old intellectualism goes.

No credible /sci/ browser rejects evolution. A post like this is just troll bait.

>>2480121
There is a box, it's closed and you can't see inside. Either there is something inside or it's empty. I don't think skepticism about the box being empty/not-empty is closer to either position.

nigger

jew

>>2480136
what if it both contains and doesn't contain virtual pair particles?

>>2480115
Nope

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theist

Check any reputable dictionary i.e. not urban dictionary or wikipedia

>>2480081
good point, you should get out of the US and see the rest of yourself. you'll not only discover that it's real, but you'll also find that it's vastly superior and you'll wish you were there when you come back to the states to finish your fucking math degree that you don't give a flying fuck about yet you have to finish anyway because people are fucking idiots and think that the "education" provided in universities is anything but a pathetic fucking exercise in tedium and so you're trapped here for another year and a half in this cultural void and the only thing preventing you from blowing your fucking brains out is the knowledge that you'll get out of here when you graduate and will hopefully be able to find work abroad now that you have a fucking degree because you couldn't find an employer willing to sponsor you for a work visa before and your australian work visa expired and no other country would grant you a working holiday visa because the states is a xenophobic fucking shithole and doesn't have reciprical working holiday arrangements with any other countries besides australia nz and ireland and so you came back home

I agree with you absolutely, but is it all working towards something? Or by something?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4OUg4U88-k

>>2480136

But once you have people claiming they have seen inside the box, and the only data you have on the box even existing comes from them, and they all disagree on what is inside the box, and they all disagree on what the box looks like or where the box is, then you start to get close to how absurd this debate is in real life.

Atheists are like 'show me the box'. Agnostics are like 'show me the box'. The only difference comes when one person says, until I see it, there is probably no box, while the other person says, there could be a box, but until I see it I wouldn't bet on it.

ITT: Pinheads who can't tell me how the moon got there. How'd it get there? How'd the sun get there?

>>2480153
>but is it all working towards something? Or by something?

If you understand how and why evolution occurs, you would never ask this question.

>>2480146
Your own links contradict you

agnostic : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

Nothing about belief because there are already positions which go to that

>>2480153
Evolution is non-directional, it's a tree not a ladder.

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

>>2479902
Nice videos you got there OP
>Cute Chick on Stickam Webcam
>Cute Dumb Blonde Chick on Webcam
>Cute Brunette on webcam
>Cute girl shows feet on cam
>Sexy Asian Stephanie on webcam sucking on a...
>Becca showing her feet on cam
>Hot Canadian Redhead With Huge Assets On Webcam

>>2480152
Cool story bro

>>2480168
>holds the view
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

>cunt outfo rusnai

>>2480081
Because there's no evidence to support that claim, and lots of evidence to support the contrary. There's a difference between throwing out all evidence and keeping in mind that the evidence you have is not all the evidence out there. Science has always been based on things we can perceive with out senses in one way or another (until our senses have been shown to be tricks when dealing with specific instances).

>>2480189
A view is not a belief, a belief is necessarily not based on evidence, a view may or may not be
>>2480186
I uploaded those to try to get the 15 minute limit removed for that channel

>>2480200
>a belief is necessarily not based on evidence,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Go to bed kid

>>2480213
That's from a revisionist dictionary, if evidence supports something there is no need for belief

>>2480227
I see you've gone for an obvious troll.

>>2480227
>Implying people didn't believe newtonian gravity was right

>>2480252
It was as correct as possible given the level of evidence available

>>2480213

fuckin lol'd

>>2480156
Remaining skeptically neutral about things that we can't possibly have knowledge about is a rational position.

Did some deity light of the big bang and then leave town never to be of again? There is no possible way to know. Of course such a simple version of deism makes no moral or religious demands on us, so a believer in such a deity and an atheist about such a deity are in exactly the same starting point on every question except one - the existence of the deity.

Being a skeptic about unicorns requires nothing of the skeptic. However being a skeptic about an organized religion does leave a skeptic with a dilemma about how to live - should he abide by the religion, just in case? Or should he live as an atheist because if religion is false then every finite moment we have in this life is too precious to wasted on false worship.

>>2480227
>>2480252
>>2480200

Semantics

We are arguing over the "meaning" of "words" in reference to "Religious beliefs" - How is this /sci/ related?

>>2480252
>newtonian gravity wasn't right?
>checks wikipedia
>Newton's law has since been superseded by Einstein's theory of general relativity, but it continues to be used as an excellent approximation of the effects of gravity. Relativity is only required when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with gravitation for extremely massive and dense objects.

Phew....for a moment there, I thought I was getting trolled.

>>2480264
>Get proved wrong
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

For the 'I'm an agnostic' pseudo-intellectuals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxqy32SFW-w

>>2480260

The answer is an obvious no, he should not abide as a base insurance policy against possible gods. He should consider the tenets of the religions on their merits, not on their unsubstantiated authority.

Atheists are skeptics as well, and only slightly off neutral. And this veering off neutrality is a natural response to the conviction with which religious ideas are held, and the commandments that come along with them. A mad idea like unicorns or gods are only amusing or, if too strongly held, pathetic when witnessed in isolation. When they form the basis for an ideology, only then are they to be deconstructed as without grounding in reality.

Just joined.

Is this thread a shitstorm?

If evolution is true where is the crocoduck?

>>2480284
>Use correct definition
>Get called pseudo-intellectual by an edgy as fuck teenager

At first I thought the moon got caught in Earth's gravitational pull at some point but that I guess that isn't case

>>2480284

Why do atheists always try so hard to claim that "agnostics" do not exist? Every time I refer to myself as agnostic, I'm told that I'm actually an atheist or that I'm actually religious. If that's the case, what the fuck is the word "agnostic" for?


For the "agnosticism doesn't exist" pseudo-intellectuals:

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

>>2480410

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

Types of agnosticism

Agnosticism can be subdivided into several categories. Recently suggested variations include:

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.[17]
Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.[17]
Apathetic or Pragmatic agnosticism
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed][18]
Ignosticism

Face it, just calling yourself "Agnostic" is just nonsense because Agnostic is a clarifier for other terms such as Theism or Atheism. By saying" I don't know" you are automatically atheist because you are saying you don't believe, even though you are not sure that is true. You are not saying "it does not exist" but the atheistic part comes in NOT saying "It does exist" that is disbelief. I used to call myself "agnostic" but then realized that its just a clarifier, you are Agnostic Atheist.

>>2480491

People who refer to themselves simply as "agnostic" with no further clarification are probably apathetic agnostics.

ITT: Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawkins defence force gets major butthurt when presented with facts that prove them wrong

>>2480470
Because almost all agnostics are atheist and almost all atheists are agnostics, so the term would be agnostic atheist. I've considered myself agnostic since I was a kid, in the sense that I knew it was impossible to show a god exists or not, however by default I considered almost all major religion's gods either impossible or highly improbable. I thought a very generic god could be possible, and I still do, however there's no way to show one way or the other so it's irrelevant. My view on what this possible god could be has changed so much over the time that I think it's unfair to even call it a god in the sense most religions define it. Some friends said I'm atheist, but I still called myself agnostic for a while as at the time I thought the definition of atheist means "believes there are no gods, no matter what", while my view was along the lines of "there are probably no gods, it's the most logical/simplest outcome I can come up with, however the possibility of god(s) existing is open, but for all practical reasons, I can assume they don't exist, thus that's my default position". After reading some literature on the subject I decided that the right definition for my lack of belief was (agnostic) atheist, and that true agnostics and strong atheists are actually a very rare breed.

>>2480470
Here's a chart.

>>2480470

Read the part about the TYPES of agnosticism. Agnostic as an affiliation unto itself is meaningless. It would be like saying "I'm a petroleum". A petroleum what? A petroleum engineer, salesman, processor? I have the same stance as you do, but the Correct way to define yourself is Agnostic Atheist. I know atheist is not an appealing word because it sounds absolute, but it is the correct noun. By calling yourself such you are saying "I don't know if/ or don't think there is a God, but I'm not certain that is true". I have the same belief/lack of belief you do man, you just gotta know that what you truly are defined as.

>>2480535
That's a lie and you know it. More people consider themselves agnostic then consider themselves atheists

>>2480491
>>2480535
>>2480548
>>2480554

See

>>2480146

>>2480563
true atheists don't need to pretend they're agnostic as well, ignore these confused tards

>>2480146
>>reputable dictionary
>>not urban wikipedia

>>2480146
>>reputable dictionary
>>not wikipedia

>>2480589
>Miss out words
>Post reaction face

>>2480470
Atheism is simply a word that means "not theism". Look at the structure of the word. The only reason it's framed as anti-theism is to set atheism up as militant and heretical.

However, common usage has little to no effect on simple logical concepts. Scientifically, there is no distinction between the directionality of skepticism and denial, which is why you have to set agnosticism/gnosticism up on a different axis.

EXAMPLE: You're a homeopath, not a homeopath, or you don't know if homeopathy is valid. The third category does not replace the former two, but rather falls under them as a modifier. People who don't know can be qualified, usually, as not homeopaths.

>>2480567
>a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

So you're a fence sitting pussy with no opinion? That's...pretty terrible.

>>2480599
>Edit wiki page
>Give sources for each edit
>Changes get reversed because mods disagree with the sources
>Reputable

>>2480606
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm

Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".

A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".

A couple of etymologies from respected dictionaries are shown below:

From Merriam-Webster Online:
Etymology of "atheism": Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.:
Etymology of "atheism": French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god

Skeptics don't accept things without evidence
Deniers or pseudo-skeptics, true believers don't accept thing no matter howmuch evidence there is

>>2480606
agnostic: you know you can't decide about something like god
atheist: the notion that god does not exist

there, saved you lazy bums a google

Atheism is captured in the phrase "I don't believe in God". Examine that phrase. Anyone who cannot truthfully say that can truthfully say "I do believe in God."

Atheism and theism cover up all available belief territory, because belief in a God is a boolean value. There are always subtleties and modifiers, but it's a binary question to begin with.

I say I'm an atheist, period.

The others are the ones who thinks I'm implying to be a gnostic atheist. But saying I'm an agnostic atheist is kind of submissive, like this matter was oh so important that I had to state everytime that I'm not sure. Agnosticism and gnosticism, as the name implies, tells more about how we handle knowledge than how we handle the possibility of a god. God is just as possible to be known as everything else, there is no need to separate him from other things. I could say gravity exists without having to tell you that this might be just an illusion and life's a dream and yadda yadda. The presence of these words in most religion debates seems like just another slippery concept to dismiss atheism, like we HAD to say out loud that we are not sure, weaking the arguments somehow.

So, atheist. No, I don't believe in god.

>>2480610
yup because if you can't decide if dark energy is real or not, then you're a terrible person as well!

>>2480610

Agnostic Atheist here, just to play devil advocate, not having an opinion on something is not bad if you don't have the knowledge or evidence to form a solid opinion. I don't have an opinion on foreign policy because I haven't looked into it and if I did form one it would likely be stupid because of the lack of knowledge on the subject

>>2480554
>"I don't know if/ or don't think there is a God, but I'm not certain that is true"

NOPE
You're saying that knowledge of god is fundamentally impossible

>>2480563

Most people who hold the position of 'there is no good reason to think there is a god' call themselves atheist or agnostic.

The dictionary definition of the two is different. The technically correct meaning of the two is different. But in practice, the two terms are used by those who profess to them to describe two positions on the matter that are very close indeed, and are, in fact, almost identical.

>>2480657
But that statement is vacuos, it's hard to even define what this "God" is.

>>2480695
yo theist atheist here

>>2480651
That's flawed and based in common usage rather than logic. Do we have to start referring to building demolition as "implosion" due to the flawed common usage, too? Does the scientific definition of "explosion" change to accommodate the current validity of the sentence: "My closet exploded when I opened it?"

The boundaries of a system of (dis)belief is not decided by the boundaries set by the majority, which, by the way, happen to be people outside that system.

Atheist to: any god or gods in particular.

Agnostic to: any god or gods at all.

>>2480668
five star post

>>2480705

If you mean what I think you mean, which is to say that you are a theist who nevertheless denies the existence of any gods other than your favorite one, then you understand the plain atheist position perfectly.

We feel about all gods how you feel about 99.999% of gods.

>>2480657
Exactly, so the gnostic or agnostic nature of your atheism of theism has nothing to do with whether or not you are an atheist.

Hell gnostic and agnostic is only tangentially related to religion, its just because society decided at some point to referentially call people who aren't sure agnostic.

When you really get down to it though all agnostics are either atheists or theists, if they honestly don't care, which is the way I sometimes feel, they still generally prefer to think of the world as either having a god or not having one.

Take me for instance, I don't really care if there is a god and I don't believe any of the unsupportable parts of Christianity, but in general I think of the world as having a god. I also have a relativist view of morality, and I think the world is probably deterministic but that the truth has nothing to do with a human reality. That makes me an agnostic theist, even though my official stance on the "facts" of science and whatever are the same as most atheists.

>>2480701
I got apples and strawberries.
all theists pick apples.
all atheists pick strawberries.
the agnostic picks nothing.
???
agnostic is more like atheist than theist

>>2480702
It can be repeated for any definition of God. The definition can be supplied by anyone making a belief claim. If there is a thing which you would call "God" based on its definition and you can make the claim that you believe in it, you're a theist.

I see your point, in that there are "theist"s who say energy is "God" or that the universe is "God". That changes absolutely nothing and certainly does not make the statement vacuous.

>>2480735
No, the atheists picks nothing and the theist picks apples. What the fuck are you talking about? Atheism is the rejection of a belief claim due to skepticism.

>>2480696
Yes, due to the fact that he is unknowable. I was really just using that example to show where people who say that fall in. But yes the agnostic part refers to the evidence based belief, and the fact that you can't ultimately disprove something for which there is no evidence.

>>2480668
You make a good point, but for the sake of philosophical completeness, you still are an agnostic atheist.

Granted I would argue that gnosis has nothing to do with your religious beliefs, and that anyone that brings it up is, as you say, trying to dismiss atheism unfairly.

>>2480735

Atheists and way closer to agnostics than any two theists are to each other, and certainly more than any theist to either one.

>>2480735

It's more like,
Theist picks apples
Atheist decidedly picks nothing
Agnostic can't decide and therefore picks nothing

Which is closer now?

>>2480752
The ignorant, stupid, and unjustified reliably appear more certain than the justified, and perceive this as superiority. Sad.

>>2480735

>implying intangible beliefs are tangible

>>2480762

That would be a more accurate representation. However there are Agnostic Theists... and your model seems to leave them out.

evolution as the basis of the diversity of life is actually a historical conjecture, not a scientific fact, when you think about it.

Honestly, evolution is kind of wishful thinking that science enthusiasts like to conflate with genetics in order to make it seem more plausible.

>>2480772
Your right,
I guess you could say they pick fewer apples.
But the whole metaphor is kinda dumb to begin with hehe.

>>2480762
funny that's what unsure atheists actually believe

2 parties who make an apparent choice for which they recieve a name
1 who doesn't make a choice
???
now 2 parties don't make a choice

>>2480762
No, theist says cranapplegrape exists.
Atheist says cranapplegrape absolutely doesn't exist.
Agnostic says he has no clue what a cranapplegrape is and doesn't make any claims to whether or not it exists.
Note: NOT THE SAME as saying it DOES or DOESN'T exist.
In a purely lexical sense Atheist would be anyone who does not directly believe in a god. However, in the modern definition, Atheism is a prescribed belief in disbelief.

>>2480797

Actually I was trying at a better metaphor, I think it was kind of ridiculous to begin with.

>>2480750
>Yes, due to the fact that he is unknowable...evidence...evidence.

YOU STUPID CUNTING SHITBIRD

Agnostisism has NOTHING to do with evidence, because agnostics(which you aren't, you're a retard) believe that knowledge of GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE.

STUPID FUCKING CUNTFAGGOT
STUPID FUCKING CUNTFAGGOT
STUPID FUCKING CUNTFAGGOT
STUPID FUCKING CUNTFAGGOT
STUPID FUCKING CUNTFAGGOT
STUPID FUCKING CUNTFAGGOT

>>2480762
Wrong. Theist picks apples. Atheist specifically picks NOT apples. It isn't simply not choosing apples, it is choosing NOT apples.

>>2480832
>CUNTFAGGOT

cunt and faggot - not quite sure of the connection there...

>>2480797


If you haven't had sex you're still a virgin, doesn't matter why you haven't had sex or if you had a blowjob in the past.

>>2480808

Yeah, which is kind of sad. I don't like calling myself Agnostic or Atheist. Agnostic makes it seem like im 50/50 on whether or not god exists, and Atheist makes it seem like I'm saying I KNOW he doesn't exist. The tea pot atheism does a good job of explaining my view, I'm as confident in my disbelief in god as I am with fairies and werewolves.

>>2480797
You seem to be under the impression that atheism is a separate world view from theism. It's not. It's just not the acceptance of a theist world view.

If there were people who believed there were train tracks under the road that hauled gold, and people that didn't believe that, and people who didn't know...would you say that the second person was making a choice? That he was actively saying that "I know for a fact that there aren't train tracks under the road?" The rejection of a baseless claim isn't a choice unto its own. There'd be an alternative "dirt under the road" world view, and that would fall under the "I don't believe the train tracks conjecture" but also carry a supplementary claim.

In other words, atheism is an alternative to theism, but not an alternate world view. Atheism is simply defined as the state of not being a theist, and this will become apparent as you think of all the things that you won't actively accept as fact.

>>2480832
Why?

Due to a lack of.......................evidence?

>>2480856
see
>>2480808
The way you're using the word simply isn't inline with the modern use of the word.

>>2480851
I see you like labels?

Labels are great at giving a one dimensional description, but who would decline additional information. Such as adjectives - an "extreme" athiest, or "tentatively" religious.

>>2480839
You're simply using an incorrect definition of atheism. If this is an argument over definition, then it's very simple to resolve the conflict:

Person A's view:
Theism(1)
Atheism(2)(
Agnosticism(modifier)
Gnosticism(modifier)
Person B's view:
Theism(1)
Atheism(gnostic 2)
Agnosticism(Agnostic 2)

Person B is supported by common usage, person A is supported by logical categorization. Arguing over two different names for the same thing is purely ridiculous, though. All this controversy over one person using broader categories and one person separating the category in half and claiming that each half is distinct.

it amazing how many times this arguement, based entirely on how you define this bullshit has been played through on this website. You'd think you retards would get bored of squabbling over semantics.

>>2480891
Claiming the adjective is inseparable from the noun is ludicrous.

>>2480891
Adverbs are lazy tools of a weak mind

>>2480852
So call yourself an agnostic atheist.
Eh?

>>2480894
but arguments of semantics are so much fun. It's like the MMO of arguments, you keep coming back because everytime you get to leave feeling like you're correct even though you haven't actually made any progress.

>>2480905
especially when half of them are adverbs

>>2480808
>However, in the modern definition, Atheism is a prescribed belief in disbelief.
Except we have no evidence of anything at all. God is just as real as pwqutryhklg which is something I made up for the place you go after you die. So stop talking as if theism was just as a reasonable position as atheism. It's not. Specially when theists take false evidence as truth, see: religion.

All this talk brings everything to the same level, as if there was no reason to argue at all. Respecting each other doesn't mean we should agree at all. Being a theist means you're ignoring mythological history and psychological behavior that explains why we created the concept of god in the first place, it's evidence that we are making up theories before any sign of them. At some time where scientific knowledge was quite limited, it was reasonable to take a book as some sort of evidence, but not today.

So in the end, it all comes down to a hipothetical being that holds the universe as something meaningful to it or the universe just being as it is. And if we even take the discovery of evolution for life or the astronomy for space, or physics and chemistry for matter and time, as examples of how the universe work, it's reasonable to extent this to the entire universe. Atheism is a much more intelligent position, in my opinion, for all that I mentioned.

Being sure of it or not is almost unrelated to this. It doesn't matter for the sake of the argument. We are not sure of anything in this world to begin with, but that doesn't stop us from discussing as if we were living our real lives.

This reminds me of "Pluto is not a planet" controversy. The definition for something changes and the uneducated get offended and claim that common definition is better that logical definition based on justifiable categorization.

In the end, it's a big fuss over people trying to preserve preconceived notions.

>>2480793
it surely sounds dumb indeed, if you got no clue to the definition of the original subject

how can I call myself a theist if I don't really believe anything or ever make an opinion..
sure I act like I got an opinion for multiple reasons, but inside I don't really mean anything I say

sure I guess god is great and all, but suppose he really exists, how the fuck am I supposed to look at the islam and christianity where god is supposed to say the strangest things
there isn't much reason to ever say you got the notion that he does or does not exist, so why would anyone with a brain do so
you can't even identify what you're talking about, for all you know everything written about god came from an anti god, random attention whoring spirits, or just insane people.

why y'all acting as if those are discrete self-sustaining definitions?
They only tell one part of the story, and complement each other.
For instance, take me.
I may say I'm an ignostic, because I think even talking about "god" makes no sense if we can't define or determine god. But I can also call myself an agnostic, because I don't see how we could know about a "god's" or other supernatural creatures existence. But for that reason I'm also an atheist, because since I don't know I have no reason to believe in it.
I'm also an atheist regarding many well defined gods, because they can be proven to be false.
And in fact, since the concept makes no sense, and there is nothing that shows an eventual supernatural being has any influence on our world I can call myself an apatheist.


Each of those definition fit me, but none of these express fully my position regarding the existence of a "god".

>>2480871
>they're not trolling, they're actually this stupid

I like the scale I devised;

Atheist: one who sees no merit in any of the claims about a god or gods, and so is unconvinced by them.

Agnostic: one who sees some merit in some claims about a god or gods, but remains unconvinced by them.

Deist: one who sees enough merit in the claims about a god or gods that they are convinced in principle, though not convinced by any particular claims.

Theist: one who sees enough merit in the claims of one sect about a god or gods that they are convinced, to the exclusion of all other sects or claims.


If anyone thinks this misrepresents anyone, please speak up.

>>2480958
funny how people keep parroting that atheism isn't the notion that god does not exist, but actually agnosticism

>>2480999

The point they're trying to get across is that atheism has more in common with agnosticism than not. Because the term agnostic has been subject to some decay, now having come to mean something like a detached neutrality on the subject, or implicating a 50/50 chance, so at this stage atheist makes more sense.

It's not Atheism (-1), Agnosticism (0), Theism (1);

it's Atheism, Agnosticism (0), Theism (1).

>>2480999
they refer to 2 different concepts altogether, even though they touch the same argument.

Atheism is about whether you believe or not in god.

Agnosticism is about whether you think it's possible to know about god or not.

And I might ask, how are you so sure that it's impossible to know about god?
To hold that position you must know something about god first, and from that deduce that it's impossible to know anything about god. But that is a self-contradicting position.
If you know nothing about a subject you can't know how much of it is knowable.

So, see, agnosticism by itself is highly irrational, and based on faith.

>>2480988
>>and ITT as a whole
>I am a mongoloid faggot who's incapable of understanding the simplest of grade school philosophy, so I shall redefine words in a pants-on-head retarded manner, because I am pants-on-head retarded

>>2481030

These threads always degrade into definition wanks.

The scale I thought up is based on these threads, and has been well received by people who hold all these positions.

>>2480988
I'll let you in on a secret
I never really believe someone is on to something by claiming stuff without explanations
to me that's kinda dumb and pointless

or did you expect someone who thinks differently to make arguments for -your- claim?

>>2480856
>You seem to be under the impression that atheism is a separate world view from theism. It's not.

In practice, it typically is. The atheism being discussed for the most part is the new atheism, entirely predicated on scientism. This is a fundamental difference in worldview.

>>2481072

>scientism

>believe-your-eyes-ism

>>2481067

What claim did I make? I just tried to draft a concise list of positions, and the name people who hold those positions call themselves. If you feel I have misrepresented your position on the list, please say so.

>>2481081
>I like my worldview.

Yes, we know. You're not actually saying anything meaningful here. You're basically just grunting like a monkey who just happens to be using words.

>>2481098
is for >>2481023
deleted the wrong reply number

>>2481105

Okay, what I mean is, I do like the world view that is based on the understanding of the natural world.

I do not consider a once off experience of the supernatural sufficient to invalidate the continuous experience of the natural. Even less so if it is second hand. And even less than that if it is hearsay.

there, you faggots.

>>2481115

The claim I make is not 'there is no god'. That position is the default. It is the default to hold the position of disbelief in something before somebody has presented it to you. I have yet to see a credible reason to buy into any claims put forward for the existence of a god.


This is why atheism and agnosticism are zeros, while theism is a one.

>>2481029
>>2481029
>>2480958
>>2480958

This. It's ridiculous how much you people ignore the relevant posts in the thread to keep bitching by picking at posts which give you something to pick at.

>>2481129
what makes something supernatural, actually believing that no one can know what happened? everything's superdupernatural

>>2481129
I am certainly not suggesting that you ought to change your worldview based on hearsay or second-hand evidence. But a person can live their whole lives needing no understanding of physics more sophisticated than Newtonian classical mechanics simply by never venturing out into the areas of reality that cannot be described by NCM. That doesn't mean that NCM is the final word on reality; it just means they don't care to know any more than they already believe in.

>>2481148
No, the default position would be to follow the implications of the underlying fundamental beliefs about reality that are already held. Atheism is merely the default for your particular cultural programming.

>>2481153

By supernatural, I suppose I mean anything from merely beyond or outside our current understanding of the world, all the way to utterly violating the laws of nature.

Witnessing, for example, a woman being sawed in half, and then being restored to health. Assuming I was not aware that I was seeing a magician who claims no supernatural powers, and I thought the performance was in good faith. It would make sense to assume trickery, to assume an explanation that fits in with my best understanding of how things normally are, rather than to accept that a miracle has taken place before my eyes. You can apply this to the stories of any supernatural occurrence.


This may just be a long way of saying, if they happened and were properly observed, they wouldn't be supernatural, they'd just be natural. And this is so. But I think I got my point across.

>>2481072
>in practice, it typically is
No. The Big Bang Theory is an example of a separate world view. Atheism is just not subscribing to a specific world view.

>>2481177

I'm not sure I get what you mean here, could you elaborate?

>>2481195 is me
the Big Bang Theory is an example of a *part of a separate worldview

>>2481177
>herpa derpa derpa
>Cultural influences are the only determining factor!!!! >A lot of people base their beliefs in baseless things, therefore everything is baseless!!!!
Atheism doesn't carry any of the implications you claim it does. I'm sorry that, in your world, nothing is demonstrable and is shaped solely by cultural influence.

>>2481195
no, atheism (or at least the new atheism) arises from a different worldview. The fundamental perceptions of reality, being different, lead to different conclusions about the potential existence of "gods".

>>2481207
Theism and atheism are both conclusions which follow from prior beliefs about reality. If you view reality as being impersonal, mechanistic and objective, you generally end up with atheistic, materialism or physicalism conclusions. If you view reality as being personal, socially interactive and subjective, you generally end up with spiritism conclusions, including the subset that includes gods. If your assumptions are invisible and never questioned, the conclusions you draw from them seem inevitable. "Default".

>>2481187
No not really. You associate an unknown situation with a known situation, and because the outcome differs you assume trickery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA8fMUdmvkA
watch this. something natural occurs, but you assume trickery because it usually happens the other way around.
when does this become a miracle? never, it's your own interpretation.

>>2481237
Thanks, you're a good example of the problems that arise from a lack of understanding of cultural influences.

>>2481263
>no, atheism (or at least the new atheism) arises from a different worldview. The fundamental perceptions of reality, being different, lead to different conclusions about the potential existence of "gods".
None of that is true. The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a God. Please provide your definition that includes perceptions of reality, different conclusions, and all these other subtleties you claim.

>>2481187
This is a terrible idea. You are basically saying that when you come across observations which aren't explained by your current theories, you will always assume the superiority of your current theories rather than be willing to change your theories to fit the evidence.

You do know you're on a science board, right? Are you familiar with them term "epicycles"? Do you understand the relevance?

>>2481279
You can try to troll me all day, but your claim that cultural influences determine the results of the logical interpretation of evidence is laughable. Logic is a consistent and concrete system that, when given the same premises, will lead to the same conclusions.

If your claim is that clarity in thinking is the result of the abundance of knowledge, and that the abundance of knowledge is a cultural influence, then ok.

>>2481275

I don't assume trickery unless somebody tries to hit me up for something. I should have made that clearer at first.

For this 'dead spot' I assume something that I don't understand is going on. When an explanation is forthcoming and satisfactory, I will accept it. Until then, I am merely curious about it, and try to make no assumptions beyond idle speculation.

>>2481280
definition is doctrine of godlessness
saying I lack believe in something doesn't cut it

>>2481301

When observations do not fit current theories, we do not throw out current theories and operate without a paradigm until we find one that explains absolutely everything we have observed.

We build a new theory that, when it is robust enough to explain the existing observations and the novel observations, then we replace the current theory.

>>2481310
excuse me, you assume what? either way, are these "hit you up" events more often called miracles than just completely random shit?
if not, why pretend it's a good example?

>>2481315
>doctrine of godlessness
Right. Could you also inform me about all the subtle effects my doctrine of leprechaunlessness has on me, and of the cultural influences that lead me to this conclusion which isn't justified and is vacuous?

>>2481340
care to make sense?

>>2481280
The definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a God.

And the definition of an apple is "The apple is the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree, species Malus domestica in the rose family Rosaceae." But you can't have an apple without there being the process of fruiting. And since it's a material, three dimensional object, you also can't have one without matter, three dimensions, and laws of physics that allow for objects.

>>2481309
>Logic is a consistent and concrete system that, when given the same premises, will lead to the same conclusions.

You're not starting out from the same premises, though. The premises you begin with are cultural constructs. You can change them, sure. But your set of premises is not any more "default" than another.

>>2481348
if I repeat it long enough, it becomes true!

>>2481319
That's not what you said. Now you're being careful, trying to appear rational and thoughtful. Before you were being careless (probably honest) about how you try to fit data to your theory, rather than your theory to the data.

>>2481346
You can't see that your notion that the rejection of a claim constitutes a view is laughable, and applicable to the denial of anything? According to you, my view of the world hinges on the nonexistence of leprechauns, and this is a complex belief that includes everything I know.

>>2481355
>unintentional irony

>>2481330

Okay, we have 'dead spot' weirdness. Here we have something that is very odd indeed. There doesn't seem to be any human agency involved, so I assume that it is just nature pulling a whitener or whatever.

Then you have other miracles that happen to people, or are performed by people, or are witnessed by only one person. In these you not only have a suspension or violation of the laws of nature as we understand them, you also have a fallible, or possibly hucksterish, human being. One who, more often than not, stands to gain from it in some way. In these cases I assume, unless something more substantial is brought forward, that they are either mistaken, or exaggerating, or lying.

I honestly don't see how this view is controversial. You must have some method to determine whether any of the miracles you hear about are real or not, right? Or do you assume they are all true? Or do you assume, like me, that you currently have no reason to think they are true?

>>2481364
No, the lack of belief in gods and leprechauns both derive from more fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality. The rejection does not constitute the worldview, the worldview leads to the rejection.

>>2481348
All of that is simultaneously true and irrelevant. Your justifications have no connection to your claims. Would you care to actually structure your point so that you're doing anything but trying to get across implications?

Except,
>The premises you begin with are cultural constructs
That's untrue, no matter how many times you state it. Especially considering that in the case of atheism I don't have anything. At all. Nothing comes from anything. If your view is that skepticism is a cultural construct, I'd just be skeptical of that and you'd say it's my cultural disposition to not believe that it's cultural.

At that point, and for that matter at this point too, you're just making stuff up.

>>2481358

I was trying to be clearer, if that's what you mean.

And yes, by necessity, you first try to fit the observations to the current theory. If I make a measurement, and upon running calculations I realise that such a measurement is impossible under the current paradigm, what is to be my first action? To drop everything and immediately phone the academy of science, and tell them to shred their library? Or to measure again and see if I get the same result. And then check the equipment. And then measure again. And then, when I have eliminated the possibility of error on my end, and I still have unusual data, only then do I think about scrapping current theories.

This is how it works.

>>2481381
That's just wrong. The lack of belief in leprechauns and a God both stem from the lack of substantiation on the part of the beliefs.

>>2481371
>I honestly don't see how this view is controversial. You must have some method to determine whether any of the miracles you hear about are real or not, right? Or do you assume they are all true? Or do you assume, like me, that you currently have no reason to think they are true?

Neither of those options is optimal. You are merely delegating your reasoning to a different agent than the person who uncritically believes everything.

>>2481390

yes, but if your worldview, which is based on your cultural biases, allows for batshit insane happenings to go on, and for you to believe whatever you are told so long as the consequences of that belief being true are palatable to you, then substantiation is not as important to you.

>>2481395

What is optimal then? Is it closer to the believe everything you hear side, or to the believe only what you see side?

>>2481395
Again, you're just saying that. It's incorrect. Skepticism is the correct position due to the fact that uncritical belief leads to self contradiction, and a view that contains self contradiction is by definition an incorrect view.

>>2481399
So you're saying that cultural influence is that my culture INFLUENCES me to make sure my beliefs are NOT INFLUENCED by my culture, and that this means my position is subjective because it is a result of cultural influence.

Amazing theory.

>>2481390
Obviously not, since many millions of people have considered those beliefs well substantiated.

>>2481386
I'm not averse to trying to restructure my point in order to communicate it better, however given that the things I think are obvious you seem to think are absurd I'm not sure how I would go about doing so.

>Especially considering that in the case of atheism I don't have anything. At all. Nothing comes from anything. If your view is that skepticism is a cultural construct, I'd just be skeptical of that and you'd say it's my cultural disposition to not believe that it's cultural.

Quite right; it is SOP for religious dogmatists to deny that their dogma is not the most fundamental of ideas. The foundations of any worldview are protected best by refusing to acknowledge their existence, so that they can never be questioned. That is precisely what you are doing.

>>2481408
>What is optimal then? Is it closer to the believe everything you hear side, or to the believe only what you see side?

You're moving the goalposts again. You original dichotomy was between believe what you hear and believe what you already believe.

if the evolution is true, why hasn't the moon turned into the earth, and the earth into the sun?

i just don't get it, things are so pretty

Go GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

am i religious yet?

>>2481423
Being vague does not lead to being right. If you'd like to discuss further, I'd like you to explain exactly what the fuck it is I'm saying that is "protecting my world view by denying its existence". I'm saying that I don't believe in a God because there is no reason to believe in a God. That's not a world view, and that's Atheism in its entirety.

>Obviously not, since many millions of people have considered those beliefs well substantiated.
Nope. That's not an argument.

>>2481422
it is a conceit of the current modern western culture that the culture does not influence the intellectual functioning of its people. you are falling for it right now.

>>2481455
Being vague does not lead to being right. You can repeat "you're being influenced by your culture, a lot of people get influenced by their culture, cultural influence is always a factor" but none of those are arguments for the subjectivity of a viewpoint.

Your options are to say something specific, stop arguing, or continue to be completely unable to distinguish logical connections.

>>2481450
>Nope. That's not an argument.

It is, you just can't see it. Part of the worldview differences between you and those people is that you do not agree on what constitutes substantiation of claims.

>I'm saying that I don't believe in a God because there is no reason to believe in a God.

Not to you, sure. But to other people who are presented with the same reality that you are presented with, some of them do think that there is a reason to believe in a god. Starting from your worldview and looking at reality you find no reason to believe in a god. Another person, starting from a different worldview and looking at reality may find that there is a reason to believe in a god.

>Being vague does not lead to being right.

I'm not being vague. I've been quite specific about what is happening.

>continue to be completely unable to distinguish logical connections.

Oddly, that's pretty much what I'm seeing in you.

>>2481509
I see you've shifted your position from "your beliefs are a result of your cultural influence" to the slightly more specific "denial of a claim is subjective determined by your worldview". Well that's wrong. The world view is determined by the evidence, and the threshold for substantiation is the correct one, because it does not lead to contradiction.

Looser definitions for "substantiation" lead to logical contradictions if they are followed, such as the conclusion "there is one god and only one god" and "there are multiple gods".

But the really funny thing is how you keep retreating back to a something broader. It's fascinating arguing with someone who thinks he can just say something and claim it proves something else when there is no connection or significance. Perhaps you should take a course that will allow you to present your arguments in a valid way, rather than saying things that are simultaneously baseless and irrelevant.

wow, this thread is still here