/sci/ - Science & Math

nope

sage

>>2817263
OP is an ignorant fuck.

ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION YOU BARNACLE-HEAD!!! IT'S THE ABSENCE OF RELIGION!!!

/thread

because many atheists are atheists because they don't like other people shoving their doctrine down other people's throats. It's somewhat petty that the recourse (of a vocal minority) is the same thing they were avoiding.

>>2817272
True, true.

>>2817275
thanks for not saging, retard.

>>2817277

OP here. You cannot tell me that the Dawkins brigade (ie. proselytizing atheists) aren't one step away from having a holy book and a pulpit.

So, if i don't care about atheism and theism, what am i supposed to be?

>>2817275

Why did I read that in this guy's voice?

>>2817287

An apatheist.

>>2817263
>Srsly. I'm an agnostic and I've never encountered such an irritating, intolerant bunch of people. Way more close-minded than any religious person I've ever met.
Lolno. There's no way that the average atheist you know is anywhere near as close minded as a diehard christian fundie or islamic fundie.

Please go away troll.

>They even roast us over a spit and we don't practice a religion.
Well, we look down on you, yes.

>>2817287
Not caring makes you an apatheist....but that also means you are an atheist as well.

probably top left corner master race (pic related) like myself.

>>2817290
Thanks.
I like it.

>>2817291

Maybe the latter, but I've never met a fundie Christian and have nothing really to judge them by except bad stereotypes.

>>2817282
>OP here. You cannot tell me that the Dawkins brigade (ie. proselytizing atheists) aren't one step away from having a holy book and a pulpit.

Yes I can. People spread the truth all the time. It's a normal course of events for people to correct other people. It's the fundamental basis of the utility argument of freedom of speech.

There is no holy book of atheists. That's asinine. Most atheists are atheists because of the science, so there cannot be a holy book.

>>2817272
But I'm not even atheist, your point is invalid.

>>2817263
OP learn what closed mindedness/openmindedness actually are before you start spouting your crap all over my fukk'hen /sci/

link related:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

being a naysayer predisposes you to certain ailments, one of them being atheism. it's a matter of character, not of belief.

>>2817299
>>2817272
Ok - people don't agree over the definition of atheist and agnostic. Can we move on now?

>>2817299
Then you are a theist, and therefore have a belief in god.

>>2817263
cool OP, awesome. maybe stay the fuck away from them, faggot.

>>2817299

OP here. You're not me. GTFO.

>>2817304
That picture is full of shit. That's not what the terms modernly mean. The words have acquired meaning beyond their etymology.

Never post that picture again.

The actual breakdown is much closer to:

- Theist - Holds a positive belief that there is a god who regularly interferes in human affairs.
- Deist - Holds a positive belief that there is a god who made the universe, but otherwise does not interfere.
- Ignorant - Hasn't made up his mind yet, and/or is waiting for more evidence. Sometimes called agnostic. Sometimes called atheist.
- Strong agnostic - Holds a positive belief that there cannot be good arguments for or against the existence of god, theist or deist. Sometimes called atheist.
- Atheist - Aka the common Dawkins-style weak atheist. Holds a positive belief that the evidence disproves the theist god. Holds that the other kinds of gods are unnecessary, untestable, and ultimately simply mental masturbation. Furthermore holds that positive belief in either kind of god is delusion.

>>2817306

How do you avoid the nuisance atheists when they're all over the net and much louder and ruder than any Christians?

Of the total atheists there are in the world, the people that you've encountered are a minuscule subset. Likewise of the theists there are in the world. Your sample size is too small to draw any conclusions other than a trend in the people you have personally encountered, you can't reasonably extrapolate your experiences to the rest of the world.

>>2817313
Ruder? Lolno.

You have an undeserved belief in belief. I wish that you would break this useless, and dare I say harmful, belief.

For more information, please see:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/03/douglas-adams-speaks-about-religion.html

>>2817304
Yeah, well, it's nice you understand my point.

I'm not sure you understand the point of agnosticism, though. The person who made that image you posted apparently does not.

>>2817313

Many of the so called "atheists" you encounter on the net are agnostics or theists in RL who simply identify as atheists online to look macho (ie. God's not the boss of me).

>>2817313
wat? i only even thought about stupid fuckface religion topics when i saw your dumb ass thread on /sci/ you stupid fuck. just shut the fuck up about it, you are making it brutally obvious that your are insecure in your religious beliefs. that's all you're doing. that's the only new information you are presenting. "OP is insecure about his religious beliefs." good job, fag.

>>2817317
yes they do. it is YOU who do not.
agnostic atheist: lacks belief in god, but does not know for certain that god does not exist
agnsotic theist: has a belief in god, but does not know for certain one exists.

seeing as you can have agnostics in both categories, clearly agnosticism is no middle ground in terms of belief or lack of belief, it merely shows that someone is admitting they are not certain about whetehr or not a god exists.
I am an atheist, but I am also an agnostic, as is Richard Dawkins

>>2817317
Just because many people don't know the definition of atheism, doesn't mean the definition has changed.

You either believe in God or you don't. Atheist or theist.

>>2817322

Fun fact. Dawkins said that Douglas Adams was "The only true convert I ever made.":

>>2817322
Those definitions are retarded sir. Under your definition, basically all self identified atheists are agnostic atheists.

You also fail to capture some very important differences between the various camps. Again, it's
1- Positive belief that a god exists
2- Dunno or otherwise neutral
3- Positive belief that gods do not exist

Again, please stop posting that bullshit in /sci/, or anywhere else for that matter.

>>2817312
>Never post that picture again.

fuck you, that picture is accurate.

>>2817326
>implying that languages are defined exclusively by dictionaries and not at least partially by common usage

>>2817332

Most dictionaries I've seen define atheist as "Someone who denies the existence of God."

>>2817336
That's an entirely separate point, and I agree that's the most common definition of atheist.

Your argument about language and the proper usage thereof is still incorrect.

>>2817331
no it's not, it just takes the terms and makes it's own shit with them.. just more retardedly complex semantics. if you want to know the religious beliefs of a person just fucking ask them something like "do you believe in a higher power?" so it's not some gay shit like "so you're athiest, but are you gnostic athiest or agnostic?"

>>2817330
Are you retarded or what?
>1- Positive belief that a god exists
Gnostic Theism
>2- Dunno or otherwise neutral
No such thing as neutrality on a binary question. It doesn't call for fact, it's just asking "do you THINK god exists?". People who are truly neutral have simply never heard of the concept of theism.
>3- Positive belief that gods do not exist
Gnostic atheism

>>2817322
Of course it's not a middle ground, it's a completely different philosophy that's only getting discussed along with the atheist/theist mindset because it's a natural alternative to deity-centered metaphysical systems.

Being agnostic (adj.) with regards to something (say, god) is not the same as being an agnostic (noun) period.

>>2817338
How is it worse? It divides the issue into four clear categories, under which all people fall. Just because you're not familiar with the terminology, doesn't make it invalid.

>>2817330
>Under your definition, basically all self identified atheists are agnostic atheists.

Nope. there is a very small minority that think they KNOW god does not exist.
these are usually the jackass type of atheists that give the rest a bad name. see top right panel on this image: >>2817292

>>2817330
>2- Dunno or otherwise neutral
doesn't happen, as soon as one hears about god, they automatically form an opinion if they make themself think about the subject matter.
also, lacking a belief and having a blief that something is not true are the same thing.
I lack the belief that a teapot is orbiting Jupiter, therefore i believe that there is no teapot orbiting Jupiter. ..BUT i do not know for certain. therefore I am an A-teapotist, as well as a teapot agnostic.

Atheism means the active rejection of religion. Hence, the common argument that a newborn baby is an atheist fails because babies have never heard of religion to be able to reject it. Thus, they would be properly described as agnostic.

>>2817342
And it's not a binary question. That's where you err. Strong agnosticism and/or ignorant is a legitimate position to hold. I am ignorant about the chemical makeup of the core of Jupiter. I do not believe that it's made of iron, nor do I believe that it's not made of iron. I am agnostic about whether the core of Jupiter is made of iron.

There can be people who have a positive belief that the core of Jupiter is made of iron, and there can be people who have a positive belief that there is no iron in the core of Jupiter.

You can ask a binary question about whether there is iron in the core of Jupiter, but a simple "yes/no" answer fails to appropriately segregate people into their actual beliefs.

"Agnostics are just atheists without balls."
-Stephen Colbert
And he's right by the way...

>>2817349
because motherfucker, this whole shit will be different in 2 years. it's just some faggot's attempt to categorize religious belief because he spends too much time on forums talking about how stupid religion is. you will never hear or use these terms in real life.

>>2817352
>Nope. there is a very small minority that think they KNOW god does not exist.
There's a problem here. I know there is no god, but I am not certain. You're conflating "knowing" with "absolute certainty beyond all doubt". That's another mistake you're making. We're all gnostic, or agnostic. You can't be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist - that makes no fucking sense even by the etymology. You're agnostic, meaning that you hold no position.

It's the theists on one side, the agnostics who don't know or don't have a belief either way, and the atheists on the other side.

>>2817354
Retard. It's as much that as being dead is the active rejection of life.

Though you're right about the baby thing. Those who haven't heard of either concept have no opinion on the matter.

>>2817349
>How is it worse?
Because it's wrong.

>It divides the issue into four clear categories, under which all people fall.
False.

>Just because you're not familiar with the terminology, doesn't make it invalid.
Correct. It's not wrong because it's foreign. It's wrong because it does not accurately group together people of similar beliefs. It is not an accurate model of the distribution of beliefs of people in the real world, nor does it reflect how most people use the terms.

>>2817359
Yes, knowing IS "absolutely certain beyond all doubt". How can you possibly argue otherwise, you fucking moron? If you KNOW there is no God, you MUST be certain by definition. If there is doubt, you DO NOT KNOW!

>>2817354
Newborn babies are completely ignorant of the subject matter.
Agnostics are atheists. period. Even those who label themselves one way or teh other, still behave teh same way
Dont go to church
Dont pray
Dont Read the bible

etc.

>OP implying atheism is a religion
0/10 not even close.
Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stickers is considered a hobby.

IIRC, Thomas Huxley was the first person to describe himself as agnostic.

>>2817366
Because that's not how people use the word know. Everyone uses the word know in a scientific sense daily. I know that I'm sitting in a chair. I know that tomorrow / today is Saturday. These are all things I could be mistaken about, but I have acquired sufficient evidence to be beyond all reasonable doubt, and thus the vernacular graduates into "knowing".

>>2817366
if you have a doubt/don't know - agnostic

you know there is no god/believe there is none - atheist

you know there is a god/believe there is one - theist

it's really very simple

>>2817368

See >>2817282

>>2817363
Ahaha, are you trolling or just thick?

>>2817369
Yep. And I'm attempting to defend his definition and interpretation of the word, which is also the etymology, which is also the current usage at large.

>>2817355
Fuck you for your shitty Jupiter iron-core belief. Without positive proof of an iron core, I refuse to believe in iron cores! You are just deluding yourself to think there's an iron core, which proves that you are a close-minded, irrational, illogical, mentally retarded faggot.
> Fuck your science.
> Your pits smell too.

>>2817370
you, sir, are no scientist. you believe there is no god, but you do not know. you can never know.