/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 25 KB, 712x956, 1293965848692.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:07:46 2011 No.2290259 [Reply] [Original]

Agnostics: The cowards of religion.

If atheism believes nothing happens after death, then agnosticism theorizes that, post-death, the body undergoes...foghorn, slidewhistle, broken glass, woman screaming, etc. Exactly. They don't know. So this means they're too stupid to figure out the truth or they're too lazy to figure out the truth. Pretty much. Agnostics just don't feel like doing anything, and they'd rather keep their minds open to all possibilities rather than choose one thing or draw a sufficient conclusion from data and information. So not only is the action cowardly, it's also lazy and willfully ignorant.

Fuck you agnostics. You pussies.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:08:46 2011 No.2290260

When you get right down to it, agnosticism is entirely based around a lack of knowledge. Literally. One of the definitions, according to Webster's, is "asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge". What this means is, beyond the obvious surface definition of 'bullshit', agnosticism is one big circle jerk, like the documentary What the Fuck Do We Know?. See, it's not regular uncertainty. It's new age hippie uncertainty. Since, like, all knowledge is relative, let's just, um, trip out...man. Pass the reefer, man! It's stupid bullshit for stupid people.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:08:46 2011 No.2290262

That's it. Agnosticism is basically a big pyramid scheme for new age people who don't see fit to categorize themselves into 'categories' or 'boxes' or 'labels' or what have you. It allows them enough wiggle room to capitalize upon any situation, such as one where they need to believe in God (prayer vigils). Or one where they need to not believe in organized religion (liberal circle jerks). You can't be like that, man! Come on. I'm beginning to think agnosticism is the equivalent of the college age girl who kisses other girls and fucks other girls while drunk but is totally straight the rest of her life and never brings up her years of experimentation to her husband. A phase...of uncertain experimentation. Yes, exactly. Agnosticism is a fad for people too pussy to go full-blown atheist. Just like bisexuality!

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:13:46 2011 No.2290272

It's not as though there's a huge gap between theism and atheism that allows leeway. You either believe in a God or you don't. You can't say "I don't know" unless you're a moron or an idiot who doesn't care and is too busy playing beer pong to grapple with the important issues of the universe. All I ask for you agnostics to do is to make a choice. Either believe in God or don't. Don't stay neutral like Switzerland; it sickens me. The water's fine in the atheist pool. Take a dip, it's fun! There are no pitfalls to atheism, and you can as snobby or pretentious as you want. Pretentious cock > new age dick.

/end

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:16:46 2011 No.2290278 I dunno if I agree with all that, but yeah, agnostics are huge faggots.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:18:46 2011 No.2290282

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk&feature=channel
Watch this.

Agnoticism is the natural state of anybody regardless of intelligence and knowledge.
Because as far I know, neither deist or atheist can even define scientifically what they said to (dis)believe in.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:19:46 2011 No.2290285

>>2290259
>It's not as though there's a huge gap between theism and atheism that allows leeway. You either believe in a God or you don't.
That would only be true if there was exactly one conception of god/gods. In fact, there are many such conceptions. Most obviously do not exist, some definitely exist but should probably not be called god/gods, and some are unknowable.

The lack of a coherent theory of God is just one reason why it's not science and doesn't belong on this board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:20:46 2011 No.2290287 anyone smell samefag in in here

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:21:46 2011 No.2290291

>>2290287
There's no upside to being an agnostic. No advantage. Zip. Nada. Nothing. At least with Christianity or any of the other religions, there's hope of becoming whisked away into Heaven (where you worship God for the rest of eternity) or Hell (where all the rock bands go to die) or some other plane of existence. And atheism obviously has no afterlife or further plane of existence. Agnosticism? No one knows. So if some religion is right, the agnostic is going to Hell or Hades or whatever. If atheism's right, the agnostic doesn't get the smug satisfaction of being right. It's lose-lose, man! I don't see a fucking point in being agnostic, just like I don't think being 'undecided' or 'moderate' is a good choice to pick for politics. You heard me; agnosticism is about as valid as voting for Ross Perot, well, ever.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:21:46 2011 No.2290292 >>2290291 Replied to the wrong person. Ment to reply to >>2290285

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:21:46 2011 No.2290293 >>2290272 Don't you bring Switzerland into this. They're innocent.

Not OP Mon Jan 3 07:23:46 2011 No.2290298

Agnostics remind me of high-schoolers who have just been introduced to philosophy and think Socrates is the greatest genius ever just because he said he knew nothing.

Such pretentious scepticism usually fades away as the child matures intellectually and comes to terms with the fact that there can be no absolute certainty, but that hypotheses of which we can not be 100% sure are still useful.

I suspect that the causes of this teenage scepticism are twofold. The first is the tendency of newcomers to philosophy to be easily impressed by deep-sounding but vacuous statements such as "I am ignorant, but at least I know it", and the second is the tendency of children to get butthurt at not being able to be certain of anything and thus take the nihilistic position that all statements are worthless, everyone is ignorant and Pyrrhonism is the only useful system.

These people will usually forsake Socrates and adopt Nietzsche as their hero as soon as they hear about him.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:25:46 2011 No.2290304 >>2290298 funny it says not OP but if you're not OP then there must be two huge faggots in here sage

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:30:46 2011 No.2290316 >>2290304 You're an idiot. First off, you don't know how to check for same poster. Second, you also can't sage properly.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:34:46 2011 No.2290333

the idea of uncertainty is respectable when it comes to something as fundamental as the source of existence as we know it. agnostics are correct when they say we can't know for sure if there is/was a god who created the universe and/or life that we can perceive and consciously analyze. they are not correct when they give equal weight to a religion or the lack thereof. seeing as there are literally thousands of lifestyles and stories related to how you should live your life according to how people interpret religion, you are a fool to have been exposed to the ideals of an atheist and still be unsure. follow the religion (keep it to yourself, no need to make others vomit around you) and go to "heaven," or give up the idea that the churches could be right. additionally, you have no place in a conversation about the origins or nature of existence, because you are trying to convince someone to feel unconvinced. i've met respectable agnostics before though, they just didn't experience enough of life to see it has nothing to do with any god, even if there is such a thing by any definition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:42:46 2011 No.2290360 > ITT : Samefag try a crusade against a misconception of agnosticism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:42:46 2011 No.2290361 As an agnostic i see theists as kind of people who believe that P=NP because it looks nice. Atheists like a kind who believe in P!=NP because nobody proved that P=NP. Which is rather foolish.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:45:46 2011 No.2290372 >>2290282 >Agnoticism is the natural state of anybody regardless of intelligence and knowledge. lolno. Atheism is the natural state. Unless you believe that animals believe in God.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:52:46 2011 No.2290391 >>2290360 If you've got nothing to contribute. Kindly shut the fuck up.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 07:55:46 2011 No.2290404

Do you guys realize that agnostics generally don't care about this crap?
I mean seriously, do we need an answer to everything, made up or otherwise?
If by chance we find out after years and years of scientific endeavor that existence conclusively has no meaning and never did, would this really make your lives any better? No.
Should you make up/believe in some bullshit stories about dudes with magic powers just because there are no concrete answers? No.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:02:46 2011 No.2290429

>>2290404
Dismissing curiosity as to our own existence is to deny the very thing that makes us human.

Of course it doesn't make a difference but it's fucking interesting dumbfuck. People like you are the retards who during high school math constantly shout out "BUT WHY IS GEOMETRY IMPORTANT?!" or "DO WE REALLY NEED TO USE CALCULUS IN OUR EVERY DAY LIFE?!", just because you are intellectually challenged doesn't mean that everyone else in the world shouldn't give a shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:03:46 2011 No.2290435 >>2290372 What the video, you clearly don't understand what agnosticism mean.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:05:46 2011 No.2290441

Atheists claim they know everything there is to know, because to be honest no one really knows what happens when you die, we can postulate about what we think is probable that happens, but the only way to truly find out is to experience it, and anyone that experiences death is unable to tell those that still left alive what exactly the experience is.

OP, How are you going to figure out the truth of dying without dying?

tl;dr - atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:06:46 2011 No.2290444
File: 19 KB, 261x326, Russell-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

>I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

>On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

>None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

>Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:08:46 2011 No.2290452

The arrogance of athiesm is the claim they know the truth of life, which they base on the simple fact that on the scale that we exist everything is linear and happens in a certain way, and for a definite cause.

But the truth of the universe is, if you look at the quantum world nothing is as it seems.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:09:46 2011 No.2290454

>>2290429
No, to use tongue to clean our genitalia is to deny the thing that makes us human. Who gave you authority to define the meaning of life or whatever crap you are trying to pull off here?
I hated people who behaved like this during math class too, but unlike you i dont pursue the knowledge that can not be achieved.
People like you are retards who during high schools came to us, students and shouted IF YOU WANNA GO TO COLLEGE YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN OPINION ON EVERYTHING HURR DURR.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:10:46 2011 No.2290455 >>2290435 That video implies that the existence of God is purely a "yes", "no" or "I don't know" question and therefore misrepresents theism and atheism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:13:46 2011 No.2290464 File: 20 KB, 361x358, butthurt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2290454 Sounds like someone was too dumb to get past high school education.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:15:46 2011 No.2290473 >>2290404 I can tell you're a butthurt agnostic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:16:46 2011 No.2290477 >>2290464 Actually I did very well. Not that it has anything to do with intelligence. Now, is there anything meaningful you wanted to say? M-e-a-n-i-n-g-f-u-l?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:19:46 2011 No.2290481 >>2290477 nah that's /sci/ if you make a good point and they can't refute it, you're obviously a dumb poopy head who never made it out of high school cause you're stupid.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:22:46 2011 No.2290491

>>2290454
>but unlike you i dont pursue the knowledge that can not be achieved.

What is something that is achievable and what isn't?

If I were to be able to go back in time and ask people; "think about a machine, that lets you communicate to each other no matter how far you are. It'll be named a cellphone". Obviously they'll consider it impossible and not achievable.

You don't know what's achievable and what isn't until you've tried.

I bet you're one of those faggots who only say nay.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:23:46 2011 No.2290497 >>2290491 Knowing what happens when you die is unachievable.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:30:46 2011 No.2290507

>>2290491
Damn me for not wording my posts more carefully.
But, the point is, I tried. My life provided me with above-average opportunities to study this problem from every side. I was a christian. I was an atheist. I am an agnostic. Neither of these was a choice. If you see something as more rational than your current opinion, you may try to fool yourself, but you have already failed.
Maybe someday a living human will answer the greatest question, but not me. I am not that cool.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:32:46 2011 No.2290512 >>2290497 You're a moron. Obviously we will find out when we die.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:32:46 2011 No.2290513

>>2290455
Don't bother answering but no, I do not see why those 3 states "I believe", "I believe you are wrong" and "No enough data for meaningful answer" don't describes the Deist/Atheist/Agnostic situation.

In fact, based on belief there is only two category.
- Those who claim they don't need fact to believe something exist.
- Those who admit that righteousness of a declaration is a empirical statement that have nothing to do with the actual fact.

Unlike what's OP think, agnostic doesn't mean no wanting to search for truth. Scientist are often Agnostic who answer atheist because common peoples don't know what agnostic even are.

And religious people sometime mix intentionally the two as a way to discredit atheism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:33:46 2011 No.2290518 File: 109 KB, 1024x768, 1024x768Zapp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:35:46 2011 No.2290520 >>2290512 Don't know about you bro, but when I die, I'll pretty much be dead.

None !!w428ZKI4e/Q Mon Jan 3 08:41:46 2011 No.2290540

>>2290513
>>2290513

This guy.

Agnostic is NOT in the middle of Atheist and Theist.
Agnostic is opposite to Gnostic, which are descriptions of what someone thinks they can know.

When you thinkyouknowitall faggots call yourself atheist, you mean Gnostic Atheist, you claim to KNOW there is no God, you are as bad as Gnostic Theist, you think there is a proof of something that IN PRINCIPLE cannot be proven.

The intellectuals amogst us would probably consider themselves Agnostic Atheist. Their BELIEF is one without a GOD, but they do not have KNOWLEDGE of it.

I know this is a science board but seriously, go read some Philosophy, Mathematics is often considered the Mother of all sciences but don't forget that Philosophy is the Father...

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:42:46 2011 No.2290545

I really dislike this kind of thread. The best option is that it's built on personal grudges writ into fantastic, fantastically flawed generalizations. The worst option is that it *isn't* based on personal grudges, and is just a cascading argument-upon-argument that has started nowhere and will end nowhere.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:43:46 2011 No.2290548 >>2290513 I always thought it was "there is no way to prove or disprove" rather than "we don't have enough proof". To me it's the only thing that makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:47:46 2011 No.2290564 File: 74 KB, 532x486, 1259368774451.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2290361 pls to luk up defination uv agnostik and reed Huxley ritings becuz i dunt tink u no wut i meens

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 08:59:46 2011 No.2290604 File: 15 KB, 819x460, agnotics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is a common missunderstanding. Agnosticism is however on a one step higher meta level. Picture should resolve any confusion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 09:10:46 2011 No.2290637 >>2290372 Atheism is not the natural state; it is based upon metaphysical foundations which are culturally learned. Get over yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 09:12:46 2011 No.2290643 >>2290497 Statement of faith. That kind of crap doesn't belong in /sci/

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 09:34:46 2011 No.2290680

Agnosticism doesn't even address the question of belief. Attempting force it to do so demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the concepts involved.

>>2290637
>Atheism is not the natural state; it is based upon metaphysical foundations which are culturally learned.

Flawed reasoning. The lack of belief in theology is not dependent on knowledge of it. If you do not know the theology, you cannot believe in it and are therefore atheist. For example a person may have never heard of the concept before, and infants would be incapable of understanding it even if they were to hear it.

To extend the example, newborn children are agnostic atheists. They are incapable of being anything else.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 09:37:46 2011 No.2290685 Agnostic is not comparable to atheist. One is a philosophy one is the lack of a belief system. Many atheists are agnostic and almost all agnostics are atheist

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 09:40:46 2011 No.2290694 <div class="math"> \newcommand{\t}[1]{\displaystyle{#1 \atop {#1~~#1}}} \t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\triangle}}}}}}}</div>

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 09:54:46 2011 No.2290720

I wouldn't call it lazy, I would call it seeing both 'sides' and accepting that they are both plausible. It's not like you have to chose a religion or belief system.

I'll probably sound like the most ignorant person on this thread, because I have no interest in religion. I'm not ashamed of that, and I don't think other people should be either.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 09:57:46 2011 No.2290726 File: 25 KB, 510x356, 1276708535301.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2290694

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:00:46 2011 No.2290731

an atheist does not necessarily believe there's nothing after death
atheism is the notion that there is no god
agnostic is the notion that you can not know

knowing you can't know anything about a certain subject does not imply fear of anything
tho most atheists just like the sound of their easily acquired title, they think it means more than it does

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:01:46 2011 No.2290732 >>2290685 >many who do not have an opinion about got have the opinion that he does not exist go read a dictionary

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:06:46 2011 No.2290745 >>2290732 >opinion Agnosticism is not a lack of opinion. Try again. >read a dictionary You know some with only one definition for each word?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:11:46 2011 No.2290755

>>2290745
go ahead, bring your western dictionary who changes atheism from the doctrine of godlessness to the doctrine that you can declare anything false that has not been proven

agnosticism also still only declares that you can not know if God is real or not
got a different opinion, bring something worthwell

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:22:46 2011 No.2290790 >implying that there's enough evidence to even draw a conclusion But your probably right, I am to lazy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:38:46 2011 No.2290848 >>2290680 No, because in order to be an atheist you must first have the foundational beliefs that lead to the conclusion of atheism. Those are culturally inculcated, not instinctive. The whole "natural" or "neutral position" argument is propaganda.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:38:46 2011 No.2290849 Agnostic here. Stop being jelly of my more logical view on higher powers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:39:46 2011 No.2290852 >>2290849 Gnostic here. Not jealous of your ignorance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:42:46 2011 No.2290858 >>2290852 So jelly.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:43:46 2011 No.2290862 File: 153 KB, 300x274, 1292599665224.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 10:55:46 2011 No.2290880

>>2290755
>the doctrine that you can declare anything false that has not been proven

You know that's not how it works at all. This is a strawman argument.

The lack of theistic belief is a very simple thing, and I find it unlikely that you cannot comprehend it.

>>2290755
>agnosticism also still only declares that you can not know if God is real or not

Is unknown or is unknowable.
We seem to be in agreement on this here, but this differs from what you wrote previously.

>>2290848
>lead to the conclusion of atheism

No, I don't think so. Again, lack of belief in something does not require knowledge of it. You cannot believe in something you do not know of.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:00:46 2011 No.2290894

I declare that I have 75 cents in my pocket. Either you believe that or you don't. If you claim that it's impossible for you to know whether or not I have 75 cents in my pocket, or if I'm even wearing pants, then you're a coward. You have to believe something, one way or another. So which is it? EITHER YOU BELIEVE I HAVE 75 CENTS IN MY POCKET OR YOU DON'T!!!!!!

---===YYYOOOUUUUU CCCAAANNNNOOOTTTT JJUUUSSSTTT SSSAAAAYYY IIII DDDDOOONNN'TTTT KKKNNNOOOOWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!====---

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:04:46 2011 No.2290899 >>2290880 Which is precisely why it is not a "natural/neutral" position to have the foundational beliefs of atheism.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:06:46 2011 No.2290906

>>2290894
Your logic is very flawed.

If you say you have 75 cents in your pocket, I have the ability to check your pocket. Or to have you show me the 75 cents. Agnosticism is not in direct conflict with facts or methods to reveal the truth.

If you refuse to show me the 75 cents, why should I believe that you have 75 cents in your pocket? Or conversely why should I not believe that you have 75 cents in your pocket?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:07:46 2011 No.2290909

>>2290894
>I declare that I have 75 cents in my pocket. Either you believe that or you don't. If you claim that it's impossible for you to know

This is completely fallacious. It's impractical for us to verify over the Internet without physical presence, but it is not impossible for the presence of your pants and 75 cents in the pocket thereof to be verified.

>>2290899

Being that a lack of knowledge is the natural/default state, I don't follow your reasoning. It would appear to be completely the opposite of what you're asserting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:09:46 2011 No.2290915 >>2290906 Really? You DO have the ability to check for my 75 cents in my pocket. Then do it. Go ahead right now and do it. You just said you have the ability, so check, right now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:11:46 2011 No.2290918 >>2290915 Sure. Take a picture and post it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:11:46 2011 No.2290919 >>2290915 Oh wow, you just went full retard. Congratulations.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:11:46 2011 No.2290922

>>2290909
If a complete lack of knowledge is the default state, then theism is as natural as atheism, since the conclusions of atheism or theism are about how knowledge has been interpreted. If there is no knowledge (or experience, to be a bit more precise) to be interpreted, then there can be no interpretation, and so no conclusion.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:16:46 2011 No.2290928

>>2290922

Your argument does not follow. Belief does requires knowledge.

At the risk of sounding repetitive (not that this will change if you keep making the same error), you cannot believe in something you do not know. It therefore follows that you must know of something in order to believe in it.

You cannot believe if you do not know, and you cannot know until taught. Ergo, agnostic atheism is the default state.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:20:46 2011 No.2290932 >>2290928 I think we're just talking past each other at this point. I agree with you up until the last sentence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:23:35 2011 No.2290936 Theism: The belief there are no gods Evidence: None Atheism: The belief there are no gods Evidence: None Agnosticism: The belief that forming an opinion based on zero evidence is stupid Evidence: The stupidity of atheists and theists

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:25:46 2011 No.2290941 Theism: The belief there are gods Evidence: None Atheism: The belief there are no gods Evidence: None Agnosticism: The belief that forming an opinion on something with no evidence is stupid Evidence: The stupidity of theists and atheists

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 11:58:46 2011 No.2291028

>>2290906
There's a better answer to >>2290894

Statement of X guy : I have 75cent in my pocket, no you can't check it.

Deist answer : He definitively have this money, he show a lot of indirect proof of it, he is smirking, he have his hand in his pocket ...etc

(true) Atheist answer : I BELIEVE you don't have that money. I have yet to prove it. He smile because he is mocking you, I believe the hand in his pocket serve the purpose to confuse you. (because I do believe he DON'T have one)

Agnostic answer : There is no direct observation of the presence of that object recognized in America as a 75 cents piece of money (external degradation not taken in account), Thus I cannot pronounce myself YET.
This do not mean I 'm not seeking for a way to search data that satisfy my own criteria.

Now imagine this was about some very important subject It mean that Agnostic have higher criteria than any of the other.
Where you see an imaginary friend, MAY be seeking for something that transcend the science of today... or miss the point. But at least he don't fool himself.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:03:46 2011 No.2291054

>>2291028
No.
Atheism: I don't have any reason to believe you have that amount of money
All kinds of theism, including deism: I believe you have that amount of money but I can't prove it
Agnosticism: I'm busy not existing as a substitute to the other two because not believing in something is the same thing as not believing in something.

Agnosticism/Gnosticism just states whether you consider your belief to be true or just the most likely theory.

Novemberg Mon Jan 3 12:17:46 2011 No.2291087

Christian theism is supported by both science and philosophy. No worldview outside of Christian theism can prove anything. Period.
Atheism/naturalism is completely useless. Its dependence on emiricism is easily one of its greatest flaws and it provides no means for dealing with anything abstract (non-physical).
Agnosticism is relatively safe for someone who lacks interest or intelligence.

>>	Naggarothian !!0S4L3hs2lkr Mon Jan 3 12:17:46 2011 No.2291089 >>2291087 Sure is bad trolling in this post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:18:46 2011 No.2291092 >>2291087 seriously? get the fuck out of /sci/

>>	Novemberg Mon Jan 3 12:19:46 2011 No.2291096 >>2291089 I sincerely believe everything I said. You can be trolled if you like, but what you read is a completely honest summary of my beliefs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:32:46 2011 No.2291136 >>2291054 Watch the video here >>2290282 Theism and Atheism are beliefs in a god with no clear definition. Agnosticism and Gnosticism is whenever you take position or not that a statement is knowable (with your criteria)

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:36:46 2011 No.2291153

>>2291054
[Atheism----------Agnosticism----------Theism]

There's always middle ground and Agnosticism is that middle ground. Atheism is a strong position that there is no god. Both based on it's etymology and use. Agnosticism is a position that proof must be established for or against any position. That's how the term was coined and you can't simply dismiss it as something else...

Most scientists, by these definitions, are Agnostic. Many scientists, however, prefer to call themselves Atheists for no apparent reason. Perhaps because they consider themselves "Atheist" in regard for the christian deity or because it fuels their angsty anti-religious side. Who knows.

Just stop fooling yourself.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:41:46 2011 No.2291161

>>2291153
>>2291136
Agnosticism exists, and I am it. But agnosticism is the position on a position, not the position itself.

Theism is the claim that there is a god, atheism is not taking part in that claim. Agnosticism is not claiming knowledge on your decision to take part or not. Therefore, all "Agnostics" are Agnostic Atheists.

It's a very simple matter that people seem to not be able to understand because they don't want to have a belief with the negative implications that Atheism has.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:43:46 2011 No.2291169 >>2291161 That's not true at all. Have you even looked into the etymology of the term Agnostic or are you just making claims you've seen/heard from other dopes?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:45:46 2011 No.2291176

I identify as an atheist since it's quite clear all the religions are wrong about the nature of the universe. However I will acknowledge there is no definitive way to know about unobservable, untestable gods or afterlives. Just like there is no definitive way to know about unobservable, untestable unicorns controlling the weather.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:47:46 2011 No.2291179 >>2291169 Listen, in terms of using words correctly in this thread, I think we should be giving that person a Pulitzer. This is probably the worst thread I've ever read on the Internet, in terms of wasting everyone's time.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:48:46 2011 No.2291182

>>2291169
Agnosticism is used both ways, as a modifier for atheism and theism and as a belief unto its own. However, science dictates a systematic rejection of theories based on lack of evidence, whether there's evidence disproving it or not.

In the case of defining scientific positions, common use by people intending to be politically correct is not relevant, because in science skepticism is equated to denial of a posited theory.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:52:46 2011 No.2291192

>>2291182
NO YOU FUCKING RETARD

That usage is reserved for internet atheist retards. It is not part of the actual English language. Correct English usage is as follows:

Theism: The position that God exists.
Atheism: The position that God does not exist.
Agnosticism: The position that one doesn't have the information to judge whether or not God exists.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:53:46 2011 No.2291196 >>2291192 You are not the arbiter of which usages are correct.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:54:46 2011 No.2291203 >>2291196 No, but dictionaries are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:57:46 2011 No.2291213 >>2291203 No, actually they're not. Lexicographers always lag behind changing linguistic conventions. All you're doing here is deliberately ignoring the way actual people use the actual terms.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:57:46 2011 No.2291214

>>2291192
That's simply not true. Religion is a posited scientific theory without evidence. Atheism is the skeptic position on that scientific theory. While calling yourself an agnostic is fine, denying that you fall under the greater category of atheism is going against the history of the word atheism and the nature of the scientific method.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:58:46 2011 No.2291217

>>2291182
>in science skepticism is equated to denial of a posited theory.

More accurately a posited hypothesis or more likely conjecture. A theory would have sufficient evidence to be accepted for the moment.

>>2291192
>the actual English language

The actual English language contains multiple definitions for each of these terms. This appears to be the crux of your issue.

>>2291203

Dictionaries do not choose which of several definitions is appropriate either, nor do they always contain all of them.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:58:46 2011 No.2291221

>>2291213
They come out with new revisions regularly to accommodate new usages and new words. They don't change the definitions because of some isolated movement trying to muddy the waters by using words incorrectly. It actually has to become part of the language to get included.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 12:59:46 2011 No.2291223 >>2291214 >Religion is a posited scientific theory The fuck it is. You don't know what you're talkin about son.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:01:46 2011 No.2291233

>>2291214
You are wrong. Agnosticism is the scientific skeptical position opposed to both the claims of atheism and theism.

a·the·ism
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1580–90; < Gk áthe ( os ) godless + -ism
(Random House Dictionary)

atheism
— n
rejection of belief in God or gods
[C16: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a- 1 + theos god]
(Collins Engish Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged)

atheism [( ay -thee-iz-uhm)]
Denial that there is a God. ( Compare agnosticism.)
(The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy)

ATHEISM
1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2. a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Origin of ATHEISM
Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
(Merriam-Webster)

>>	Muzau !!iRa1WRzvg9i Mon Jan 3 13:03:46 2011 No.2291239 >>2291233 See this post.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:04:46 2011 No.2291241

>>2291217
>More accurately a posited hypothesis or more likely conjecture. A theory would have sufficient evidence to be accepted for the moment.
I appreciate the correction in terminology and will make an attempt to be more accurate in the future.
>>2291223
If you're making the same correction as the previous post, thank you. If you're denying that religion is at the least a scientific hypothesis, then I'd have to disagree with you. It attempts to explain the world, so it is a scientific hypothesis, unsupported or not.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:04:46 2011 No.2291243

>>2291221
>They don't change the definitions because of some isolated movement trying to muddy the waters by using words incorrectly.

That's how most of the language came to be. You're attributing an immutable or even virtuous characteristic to the language that it does not actually possess.

English is more akin to a thug following slang and foreign languages down a dark alley before clubbing them over the head and then rifling through their pockets for spare vocabulary.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:04:46 2011 No.2291246

Atheists are deluded faggots who think they can know for a certainty whether something doesn't exist as if they've seen everything every religion on Earth has to offer, they've tested the claims behind each one, and know for certain they're all false. And that's simply one avenue of discovery of what the universe itself contains.

Agnostics at least have the balls to admit they can't know for certain because the full sum of all knowledge of the universe can't be contained within a single human lifetime.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:04:46 2011 No.2291247

>>2291221
The "muddying the waters" you're talking about is the elaboration of the idea by people who actually hold to that idea. In your world, unobserved cats wold be both alive and dead at the same time b/c that's all that you'd have the space to express in a short definition.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:06:46 2011 No.2291251 >>2291233 Being unconvinced is rejecting a hypothesis. They are one in the same logically.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:08:46 2011 No.2291253 >>2291241 "scientific" does not mean "attempts to explain the world". >>2291251 Incorrect. String theory has not convinced many people, but they have not rejected the hypothesis. You clearly don't know how actual scientists operate.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:11:46 2011 No.2291265

>>2291241
Scientific hypothesis are hypotheses concerning the natural world, testable with empirical data. Religion is comprised of spiritual hypotheses, which are only testable against spiritual experience or against a chosen form of scripture or other revelation. Empirical data can't speak to spiritual hypotheses. Both can be approached rationally and critically, but only one is science. That's why science was originally called NATURAL philosophy. Because it limits itself to the NATURAL world.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:13:46 2011 No.2291273

>>2291243
Language evolves like other social conventions evolve. Dictionaries reflect this. People intentionally misusing words to confuse other people may or may not be part of the process, but until something has become part of the language, it is not part of the language, just an attempt to confuse the issue.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:15:46 2011 No.2291275 File: 132 KB, 686x686, 1292179831464.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2291265

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:16:46 2011 No.2291279 >>2291253 They're still rejecting it as a hypothesis at the moment if they haven't incorporated it into the things they think are true.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:16:46 2011 No.2291281

>>2291246
That's not correct either. Atheists don't claim to "know for certain" that God doesn't exist. Certainty is not a part of any of these positions. Therein lies a lot of the confusion. Atheism is the doctrine that God doesn't exist. Atheists don't need perfect certainty to be atheists any more than Theists need perfect certainty, any more than Dualists, Existentialists, Rationalists, or any other school of thought needs perfect certainty. Certainty isn't part of the equation anywhere.

(inb4 gnosticism means certainty. It doesn't)

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:18:46 2011 No.2291292

>>2291246
I've never met an atheist who has claimed to know for CERTAIN that no god or gods exist.

But we can't really know anything for certain. That doesn't mean we can't make provisional conclusions based on what is probable or improbable, as regards the evidence at hand. That's what people do for EVERYTHING - but agnostics decide that god is apparently a special case.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:19:46 2011 No.2291296 >>2291281 But they claim certainty, just like OP claims certainty. He even uses it to show how people that are uncertain are fools for being uncertain. Combining your definition with OPs definition all atheists are agnostics.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:19:46 2011 No.2291297

>>2291273
FFS, I'm not even an atheist and I can see you're full of shit. Actual people who self-identify as atheists describe the nature of their atheism that way. Your attempt to control how other people explore ideas is just intellectually dishonest.

>>2291279
No; luminiferous ether is a rejected hypothesis b/c it has been shown to be incorrect. Now you are just trying to redefine "rejected" to fit your own preconceived notions.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:20:46 2011 No.2291301

>>2291247
No, what I'm talking about is actual atheists -- people who believe that God does not exist -- who understand that atheism implies that notion -- and who want to, by playing the definition, inflate their numbers to include agnostics who don't think that God necessarily doesn't exist. They know that "atheism" will always connote what it connotes, but by arguing that it actually means something different, they can claim there are far more atheists than there are, and they can also avoid having to defend the actual position of atheism, as if they were merely agnostics. That's what's really going on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:20:46 2011 No.2291302 >>2291273 >implying that a hostile attribution of doctrine to the term (Merriam-Webster et al) is not an attempt to confuse the issue, in opposition to the more moderate lack of belief describing the people actually using the term

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:21:46 2011 No.2291303

>>2291247
No, the muddying of the waters he's talking about is the deliberate (and rather humorous) redefining of "Atheist" to mean EXACTLY what "Agnostic" has meant since it's coinage in the late 1800's.

The reason: "Agnostic" is just not hardcore enough for the angsty failures who get into religious debates whenever possible. God forbid (lol) that they declare themselves an Agnostic, then the Theists might think they actually entertain the idea of a god existing. THE HORROR.

Protip: Scientist truly don't care whether or not the term makes us more vulnerable to religious tolerance, we actually prefer it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:21:46 2011 No.2291305 >>2291292 >But we can't really know anything for certain. Ultimately, you're an agnostic. Ok.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:22:46 2011 No.2291307 I am not sure if any gods exist. I live my life as if they don't. If this desribes you then you are an atheist.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:22:46 2011 No.2291309

>>2291265
You can call it spiritual, but the laws of the world are science. Looking to compete scientific theories with or looking to be an alternative theory about how the world works makes it a scientific hypotheses, although I do agree with you that it's not scientific in the sense that the method to reach that hypotheses would never hold up.

Still, the laws of the universe are collectively science, and a theory looking to become the explanation for the origination of the universe is a scientific hypotheses.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:23:46 2011 No.2291311 >pic actually agnostic is right. but science is just based on something else.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:24:46 2011 No.2291315

>>2291296
I'm not saying an atheist or theist can't be certain. An atheist or theist can be either certain or uncertain. But either way, they espouse the doctrine of either the non-existence or the existence of God.

If they espouse neither doctrine, they are agnostics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:24:46 2011 No.2291321 >>2291309 I'm not sure how you expect me to take you seriously after you've demonstrated such a profound lack of understanding about what scientific theories are.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:26:46 2011 No.2291324

>>2291301
Oh, so it's a grand conspiracy now? Atheists are somehow benefiting from inflated numbers?
>>2291303
LANGUAGE USAGE CHANGES. People who have been following an evidence-needed philosophy have DECIDED TO CALL THEMSELVES atheists, rather than agnostics, and people who have been following the it-cannot-be-known philosophy have decided to call themselves agnostics.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:27:46 2011 No.2291333 >>2291309 >the laws of the world are science. This is nothing more than the thesis of your personal philosophy. It does not put religion under scientific purview for anyone other than yourself.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:30:46 2011 No.2291344

>>2291321
OK bro. If you want to define a claim based on the methodology that reaches it rather than dealing with a claim based on the methodology that reaches it, and thereby tie your hands from dealing with that claim in a scientific manner, you go right ahead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:34:46 2011 No.2291356 >>2291344 This is a strawman argument and I have no idea why you thought I would not notice it. The crux of your issue is a false dichotomy. At its core, this: >>2291333

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:34:46 2011 No.2291358 >>2291324 The usage has NOT changed. Take a poll and see how people describe an Atheist as opposed to an Agnostic. The truth is simple, Agnostic is just not hardcore enough for you fags. You can't just change the meaning of a word to suit a minority.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:40:46 2011 No.2291382

>>2291358
>Take a poll and see how people describe an Atheist as opposed to an Agnostic.
So if a poll says that people describe the observer effect as being the theory that a human consciousness changes reality by observing it, then that is in fact what the observer effect is?

>The truth is simple, Agnostic is just not hardcore enough for you fags.
I am neither an agnostic, nor an atheist. I am a gnostic theist, so your perceptions of who the kinds of people are who disagree with you on this point are flawed.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:43:46 2011 No.2291390

>>2291356
We're arguing over the definition of the word scientific, I fail to see a dichotomy of any kind. If you could just back down for a second from your "calling religion science" reflex you'd see the use of the word scientific for describing an unscientific theory in a scientific context isn't bending the word too much.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:49:46 2011 No.2291409 >>2291390 It's not bending the word to use it to describe something that isn't science?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:49:46 2011 No.2291410

>>2291382
>So if a poll says that people describe the observer effect as being the theory that a human consciousness changes reality by observing it, then that is in fact what the observer effect is?

If there was basis for such definition, then yes. Since there is no basis for such a definition, no. This isn't a case where scientific progress has changed a definition after all...

Changing the word "Agnostic" to "Atheist" without basis is just stupid. Give me one reason why it's necessary or makes sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:51:46 2011 No.2291421 >>2291390 >isn't bending the word too much. That's downright breaking the word. But hey, let's hear your definition since you clearly have one we're unfamiliar with.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:51:46 2011 No.2291423 NEWS FLASH: Everyone is agnostic. No one knows shit about God, we just make up beliefs. Everyone is agnostic. It ain't anything special.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:52:46 2011 No.2291426

>>2291410
Because people who self-identify as atheists define it as such.

The point is that the part about "lack of belief" is an *elaboration* of the basic characterization that is common and which may be misleading if that's all that's taken into account. In the same way that people can be misled by taking only simple descriptions of ideas; eg- people who think that global warming is wrong because there are colder winters.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:53:46 2011 No.2291430 >>2291423 do you even know what agnostic means?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:55:46 2011 No.2291436 <span class="math"> \newcommand{\t}[1]{\displaystyle{#1 \atop {#1~~#1}}} \t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\t{\triangle}}}}}}}[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:56:46 2011 No.2291441 File: 44 KB, 216x212, almost laughing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2291436

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 13:58:46 2011 No.2291448

>>2291409
I guess I could concede to your argument that whether a hypotheses is scientific or not is dependent on the method used to reach it. It made a lot of sense to me at the time but as each minute goes by and I can't think of a proper justification, I'm beginning to believe that there's no point where "science" splits into method and the laws of nature.

My usage of the word seemed proper as using the time because putting an unsupported hypotheses in a scientific context seemed to make it a scientific hypotheses, but I can't come up with a justification for that.

What do you call a competing, popular hypotheses that is unsupported and unfalsifiable? Stupid?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:01:46 2011 No.2291455 >>2291448 >unfalsifiable We call it a conjecture or just plain poppycock because a hypothesis must make falsifiable predictions.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:01:46 2011 No.2291457

>>2291430

yes it means "without" knowledge of God

everyone is without such knowledge, everyone on the fucken planet. They may pretend to be otherwise, but they are just creating beliefs, not knowledge.

No man has knowledge of God, pro or con.

Everyone on earth is Agnostic by default since we are all ignorant of God.

The thing is, to make some sort of rational belief regarding God and the world, that is what mature people do. If you are interested in nature, the universe, you are going to make some sort of belief about the world and about God, that is why people become Atheists or Theists.

Everyone including fucken fetuses is agnostic. It ain't something to be proud of, ignorance is the default position.

The point is to try and take a step forward, either with theism, atheism, pantheism, or some other sort of system, and you support it with reason/experience/argument/etc.

Theisms pertain to beliefs
Gnosticisms pertain to knowledge

there are no gnostics, everyone is agnostic.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:03:46 2011 No.2291466

>What do you call a competing, popular hypothesis that is unsupported and unfalsifiable? Stupid?

Non-scientific, perhaps. I might call it other things depending upon what other characteristics it had.

Although again, the characterization of that hypothesis as being unsupported is really *scientifically unsupported*. It's generally quite well supported within the system it follows.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:05:46 2011 No.2291473 >>2291426 You are reaching so far it's pathetic. Self-identification does not give a group the right to start changing definitions. There's no basis for the change, the majority certainly does not agree with the change, it's stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:05:46 2011 No.2291477 >>2291466 the existence of things is unfalsifiable you can't falsify the existence of a particle, or a blackhole fasifiability is a pretty weak criterion

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:06:46 2011 No.2291480

>>2291457
And yet there is in fact a spiritual/religious tradition called Gnosticism which would hold a perspective opposite to your own. And all your post really was was a long assertion of your own belief in agnosticism (in the sense that knowledge of this subject isn't possible).

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:10:46 2011 No.2291485

>>2291473
It's not rational to uncritically accept the outsiders definition - no matter how many people hold it - of the idea when there is such negative prejudice associated with it. If there are fewer pro-Israeli statists than anti-Israeli statists, does that mean that Israel is automatically an unjustified state? No, that would be argument ad numerum, and it's a well known fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:11:46 2011 No.2291486 >>2291480 knowledge of anything isn't possible for humans they only have beliefs

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:13:46 2011 No.2291488

how many gnostics are there now, and how many of those aren't "searching" for God but have acquired knowledge of him?

I'll tell you how many, 15. And they are all indian guru scammers that pretend to be enlightened and rip-off stupid westerners.

gtfo, everyone is agnostic due to the nature of being an ignorant human living in an uncertain world

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:13:46 2011 No.2291489 >>2291486 Yes, I am familiar with your position. I do not agree. Gnosticism describes my position, not whether or not I am correct.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:14:46 2011 No.2291492

>>2291485
Add that to the fact that the word structure suggests skepticism in the first place. All it says is "not theism", which is what agnosticism supposedly is when you apply it directly to the concept of god rather than properly to the belief of the person using it, where it actually has a nuanced meaning.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:15:46 2011 No.2291493 >>2291477 >>2291486 As amusing as reductio ad absurdum is, you haven't demonstrated an adequate understanding of falsifiability as it pertains to science. Refer to this as a starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:16:46 2011 No.2291495 >>2291477 >you can't falsify the existence of a particle, or a blackhole Sure yo can. There are ways to test whether there is a particle or a black hole there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:21:46 2011 No.2291505 >>2291495 For example, the double slit experiment falsifies the hypothesis that light is (just) a particle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:23:46 2011 No.2291511 >>2291505 And the fact that I can't fit my cock into your ass without massive amounts of lube falsifies the hypothesis that you're an engineer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:24:46 2011 No.2291512 >>2291511 You haven't seen my ass ;)

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:26:46 2011 No.2291515

>>2291485
Again reaching. You're making a more ridiculous argument with every post. Equating a definition to a stance on Israel? Are you fucking kidding me?

By your misguided logic a group of monotheists could change the definition of monotheism to "the belief in multiple gods" without any justification or respect to the definition of polytheism.

Atheism's etymology and definition, even in the modern world is "The belief that there is no god". Plain and simple. Changing that definition along with it's etymology to something completely different is both misleading and ignorant.

Agnosticism was coined long ago as a middle ground and it remains as such. There is no need to change definitions.

>>2291492
Do you even know what etymology means?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:28:46 2011 No.2291520 >>2291515 Yeah, ok, I think I;ll just stand aside and let you b stupid now.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:30:46 2011 No.2291526

>>2291515
Jeez, you really are resisting categorization, aren't you? This reminds me of when deists insist that they don't fall under the category of theism.

Anyone who doesn't believe in god falls under the broad umbrella of atheism. Call yourself what you'd like, but keep in mind that platypuses don't have a choice on the whole mammal thing.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:35:46 2011 No.2291535

>>2291495

>Sure yo can. There are ways to test whether there is a particle or a black hole there.

you dont understand what falsifiability means then.
it means, is it possible to somehow show the negative of some hypothesis

you can't negate the idea that God exists, so it isn't flasifiable, you can't negate the idea that black holes exist

you would have to show, hypothetically, that there are no black holes in the entire universe

it isn't just a matter of showing that here in this spot there is no black hole

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:35:46 2011 No.2291536 What if I believe in evolution and also believe in the idea of God. I don't believe in dogmatic religion. Am I agnostic?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:37:46 2011 No.2291540 >>2291535 The problem of proving a negative is different from the problem of falsifiability. Please be more careful in your terminology.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:38:46 2011 No.2291543 >>2291536 You may or may not be depending on your definition of the term "agnostic". Isn't it fun?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:39:46 2011 No.2291545 >>2291540 its not about proving, its about showing it is possible to "prove" "support" the negative (opposite) of a hypothesis that is exactly what falsifiability is. please learn your terms better

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:40:46 2011 No.2291547 >>2291540 he never said proving a negative you dimwit

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:41:46 2011 No.2291551 >>2291540 Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be SHOWN FALSE i.e showing the negative of a hypothesis god /sci/ is fucken dumb sometimes

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:43:46 2011 No.2291556

I don't know what I qualify as, but It goes a bit like this.

I don't give a fuck if there is any sort of higher being. If someone cares about it they're insecure by nature. Being outspoken has its uses, like avoiding indoctrination but beyond that shut up and let stupid people be stupid.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:43:46 2011 No.2291557

>>2291526
Atheism is, by it's very etymology, a strong belief in no gods. In essence anti-theism. Agnosticism is, by it's definition, the middle ground between the two schools of thought. It's pretty simple:

Atheism----------------Agnosticism----------------Theism

You can be anywhere along the lines... Atheist, Agnostic Atheist, Agnostic, Agnostic Theist, or Theist.

All are very well defined.

Atheist: There is no god.
Agnostic Atheist: There is no evidence for or against a god, however I do not believe there is a god.
Agnostic: There is no evidence for or against a god.
Agnostic Theist: There is no evidence for or against a god, however I believe there is a god.
Theist: There is a god.

Claiming that Atheism covers all schools of thought that do not adhere to a god is just misleading and silly. Still waiting for one good reason why Atheism usurping the definition of Agnostic is a reasonable course of action...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:44:46 2011 No.2291559 Theism vs. Atheism Gnosticism vs. Agnosticism Are you all stupid?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:44:46 2011 No.2291563

>>2291535
>you can't negate the idea that black holes exist

You don't understand falsifiability in general nor the scientific theories regarding black holes in particular. Your arguments thus far have been largely absurd, but this is completely nonsensical.

That is now what it is to prove a negative. Re-read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

>>2291545
>>2291547
>>2291551

This is probably the same person

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:45:46 2011 No.2291564

>>2291543
Also I believe God is a lot like our sciencist expect he actually creates life out of the lab.

Also there is the probability of God existence; For example, we might be the aliens and God put us here to breed for future dissection and analysation.

So if there is still probability of God existing, I simply have to put it as unknown.

I believe in evolution. I also believe in God. But I reject dogmatic religion.

>>	red fedora hat Mon Jan 3 14:46:46 2011 No.2291565 >>2290259 Both religion and atheism are assumptions, agnosticism is admitting not to know. Which is the wisest option.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:46:46 2011 No.2291566

>>2291563

you haven't explained why you believe I'm wrong

Everything I said has been in line with the definition of falsifiability

"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false"

Explain yourself, or you fail by default.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:48:46 2011 No.2291573 there is a lot of mixing up religion with the ideas of theism and atheism in this thread. you are all stupid.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:50:46 2011 No.2291578 >>2291573 I'm Agnostic Atheist Theist? LOL are they going to legit that term any soon? See.>>2291564

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:50:46 2011 No.2291579

>>2291566

This is what I said: "it means, is it possible to somehow show the negative of some hypothesis"

This is wikis definition: "Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false"

The negative of a hypothesis means refuting a hypothesis (showing it is false). Depending on what the hypothesis is, you might have to prove a negative, thus falsifiability is impossible in some cases.

If I have a hypothesis that there is a particle that has some specific property, you can't falsify that claim unless you search the entire universe for that particle.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:51:46 2011 No.2291583 >>2291579 >If I have a hypothesis that there is a particle that has some specific property, you can't falsify that claim unless you search the entire universe for that particle. Is that supposed to be meaningful? That's not how science works.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:52:46 2011 No.2291588 >>2291578 you are retarded is you can't figure out how the terminology works.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:54:46 2011 No.2291598 >>2291583 A man who know how science works?! 1 internet for bravery, everyone gather up we can abandom all research, come gather around, the man knows how science works! Also DERP.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:54:46 2011 No.2291599 >>2291578 You're an Agnostic Theist. You believe in a god, but you don't define this god with any set attributes (i.e. all knowing, poops diamonds, etc...).

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:54:46 2011 No.2291600

>>2291583

1. I win, since you dispute the relevance of my claim not the accuracy

2. It is relevant, existential claims are important, if you hypothesize that a particle is causing some effect, then finding out if that particle actually exists is very important, like higgs boson

3. You fail

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:56:46 2011 No.2291606

>>2291600

The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics.
The existence of the particle is postulated as a means of resolving inconsistencies in current theoretical physics.

You can't falsify claims regarding the existence of this particle.

falsifiability is a bad criterion.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:59:46 2011 No.2291615

>>2291588
Does atheist not reject dogmatic religion?
In the process can I believe that the idea of God is unknown?
As I'm open minded to the concept of God and not abandoning the probability that God could exist as an intelligent life form. I'm labelled retarded, I shall be as retarded as I can be. Good day to you sir.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 14:59:46 2011 No.2291617

>>2291606
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/52106-two-questons-about-the-higgs-boson-and-supersymmetry/

> the Higgs boson and supersymettry effects should be measurable at predictable energies. If our experiments at those energies do not show the predicted effects then we know that they do not exist, at least in the way be thought they did. Those energies should be achievable in the LHC. So yes, they are falsifiable.

Keep spouting shit you don't understand, tard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:05:46 2011 No.2291631 >>2291617 >then they do no exist, at least in the way be thought they did. >exist, at least in the way be thought they did. >at least in the way be thought they did. Derp. I'm still right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:07:46 2011 No.2291638 >>2291617 this also assumes their experiments are adequate at those energy levels to detect the higgs boson thats another problem, another way it isn't falsifiable and the caveat >exist, at least in the way we thought they did. ROFL

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:07:46 2011 No.2291642 >>2291631 >my stupidity and inability to understand the science in question means that I'm right.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:09:46 2011 No.2291647 >>2291638 It falsifies their working definition of the proposed particle. You are trying to claim that by shifting the definition of the thing to be falsified, you can escape falsification. You are incorrect.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:11:46 2011 No.2291650 1. they could be doing incorrect experiment 2. they are the ones shifting the definition, in some ad hoc way they are trying to get around the fact that falsifiability is shit

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:11:46 2011 No.2291652

>>2291631
(not the person you're responding to) No, that still demonstrates the importance of a falsifiable claim. Not finding the higgs-boson would mean the properties they thought it had weren't right. It's demonstrative of how falsifiability is necessary for the adaptation of hypotheses using the scientific method.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:13:46 2011 No.2291654 > Agnosticism > People who don't give a shit > Live life without having stupid conversations about something as trivial as religion

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:15:46 2011 No.2291658 Can you think of an unfalsifiable claim that is still valid? Lawn gnomes exist under certain lawns. Test: dig up some lawns If it's true, then we'll either find some gnomes or not find some gnomes. If it's false, we won't find any gnomes.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:15:46 2011 No.2291659

>>2291650
No, *you* are the one shifting the definition. They have a very specific set of properties for the proposed particle, and those can be falsified. *You* are misunderstanding the process by thinking that the words "not in the way we thought" means that they're shifting their definitions. They are not. They may just be working on falsifying Higgs-Boson hypothesis (1), and then later on move onto Higgs-Boson hypoethesis (2). Each version of the proposed Higgs-Boson would be falsifiable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:22:46 2011 No.2291684 >>2291659 and the higgs-boson would still be unfalsifiable regardless of how often they changed their definitions

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:26:46 2011 No.2291695 >>2291684 Incorrect. Every instance of the proposed particle using the name "Higgs Boson" is (would be) falsifiable. I even put a link up for you dude, FFS twenty seconds with google shows you how you're wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:29:46 2011 No.2291704 >>2291695 just cause they didn't detect it one location doesn't mean it isn't somewhere in the universe 1. their tests could be invalid 2. it just might not be anywhere near earth FAIL. stop trying bro.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:31:46 2011 No.2291710 >>2291704 You're right, trying to educate you is a lost cause.

>>	sage sage Mon Jan 3 15:33:46 2011 No.2291724 In all fields

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:33:46 2011 No.2291729

>>2291704
(not the person you're responding to)
A particle's definition includes where it can be observed. If it isn't observed there, the definition is wrong. They don't just make up definitions, particles are supposed to solve problems and contain testable conditions that can confirm or falsify the current definition of the particle.

They don't just change definitions, and they don't just look around the corner for the Higgs-Boson. They use particle accelerators to look for evidence of them, and any supposed particle would and could occur on earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:36:46 2011 No.2291742 >>2291729 That isn't the issue. A problem inherent to falsifiability is the fact that you could always be doing an insufficient/invalid experiment or false interpretation/detection of the data.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:39:46 2011 No.2291753

>>2291729

>any supposed particle would and could occur on earth.

irrelevant.

to falsify something means to logically show a hypothesis could be refuted.

your experiment not detecting particle X doesn't mean the hypothesis is wrong, it means your experiment could be wrong.

falsifiability and empiricism don't mix.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:40:46 2011 No.2291761 >>2291742 No, that's a problem with every form of investigation ever. You are essentially repeating the agnostic's argument from upthread. >>2291753 you too.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:42:46 2011 No.2291764 >>2291761 yep it is a problem that applies to falsifiability, im right

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 15:56:46 2011 No.2291824

ITT : I lose a little bit more faith in the concept of what one might regard as "humanity"...

Honesty, why is it that so many human endeavors, perhaps more linguistically than otherwise, are for the sake of generalist categorization? Is it so it's easier to accept something, so that you can then reign your unceasing experiential bias at it? So you don't have to think as much about the innumerable variances which exist, and change?

I feel as if the motivation for those who regard themselves as adherent to any of the arbitrarily categorized "ideologies", is purely for the sake further categorization, and subsequent generalizations, hostile or otherwise.

When it boils down to it, you're unable to say, i'm unable to say, and i personally do not wish to presume...

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 16:05:46 2011 No.2291872
File: 215 KB, 2658x2298, 1292123809196.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I wouldn't call agnostics cowards. Just confused. I was an agnostic until I realized it made no sense. The things we know are based on what has been proven. We do not believe in something just because there is a possibility of it existing. So the phrase "I don't believe in god but also can't say he doesn't exist" doesn't really fit with the idea of a logical thinking person. Especially since an atheist DOES NOT mean there is no such thing as god. It is defined as a lack of belief in god. So if god was somehow proven tomorrow, atheist would have a sudden reason to believe because it was proven.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:09:46 2011 No.2292475

>>2291872
I believe a true scientist must be a agnostic. As he cannot proof the non-existence(that a word?) of a god. He must acknowledge that he does know all yet. It might be true that god exist. However unlikely it might be. As scientist you must stay objective.

OP wrote ... atheism believes nothing happens after death... Believes... so they are not sure and this cant be proven yet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:12:46 2011 No.2292483 >>2292475 Christfag detected.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:20:46 2011 No.2292514 >>2292483 scientists do claim they don't know for sure, ask them. btw, not samefag.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:21:46 2011 No.2292521 >>2292483 haha... guess again

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:23:46 2011 No.2292533
File: 32 KB, 320x240, drghat[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2292475
I believe a true scientist must be a agnostic. As he cannot proof the non-existence(that a word?) of The Soup Dragon. He must acknowledge that he does know all yet. It might be true that The Soup Dragon exists. However unlikely it might be. As scientist you must stay objective.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:28:46 2011 No.2292555

>>2292514
Wrong, this is what happens

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2005-04/1114460899.Gb.r.html

If you think your mind can survive your brain decay or that you have an eternal soul then it's up to you to prove it, not ask scientists to get negative proof of your theory.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:32:46 2011 No.2292576 >>2292533 true words

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:33:46 2011 No.2292585

>>2292475
"Believe" is the keyword, you are part of the church of fundamentalist agnosticism, you are the kind of people that should never go out of their basement because there's a chance you might get hit by a car on your way to school, YOU CAN'T KNOW, but despite that you take a risk because you believe that won't happen. Here lies the fundamental hypocrisy of people who think agnosticism is a lifestyle or path to objectivity.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:48:46 2011 No.2292659
File: 739 KB, 2110x2652, 1258427875290.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Hey guys I'm agnostic.

You all are just mad because I have the balls to admit to myself that the human race doesn't have the capabilities to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

So while you guys argue amongst yourselves about how you came to be I'll actually go out and enjoy my existence with no strings attached and no one to pray to for I am the god of myself and the things around me.

Everyone else around me is just sheep following some sort of Shepard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 18:53:46 2011 No.2292679 >>2292659 It is logically impossible to hold the hardcore agnostic position if you consider "God exists" to be an analyzable proposition, in which case you are no longer a hardcore agnostic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:00:46 2011 No.2292720 >>2292679 >Hardcore So even atheists are fucking retarded. Fuck atheists and theists both are fucking ignorant stuck up retards Also Dawkins and the pope are in it for the money and little boys

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:03:29 2011 No.2292734 [DELETED]

>>2292659
And now we encounter the most childish forms of agnosticism, the "I'm better than you agnosticism" fed by an adolescent need to be unique and the logical fallacy of the middle ground.

This are by far the worse kind of agnostics. They think they elude stating their position by claiming you can't prove or disprove the existence of a creator (like other agnostics) but what makes them unique is based on that they justify their god-like superiority over the unknown.

What of the Christian god turn out to be true one?

Oh, but we can't know the agnostic says

Yes, but what if it is?

Then I'm sure he'll understand why I lived with no strings attached and no one to pray to, for I thought I was the god of myself and the things around me.

But Christian god hates agnostics even more than atheists

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth"

Oh, then I guess the superior mortal life I lived will compensate for the pain of my eternal soul in hell.

Of course, the "I'm better than you agnostic" doesn't consider the possibility of personal revengeful god, he's just agnostic about the benevolent kind of gods or the concept of god itself, anything that poses a threat to his mental comfort, he's atheist about. Thus, one more time, the hypocrisy of agnostics is revealed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:03:46 2011 No.2292732 >>2292679 but if you don't consider the god exists you aren't agnostic then, you'd be atheist

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:03:46 2011 No.2292733 0/10

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:07:46 2011 No.2292752

>>2292659
And now we encounter the most childish forms of agnosticism, the "I'm better than you agnosticism" fed by an adolescent need to be unique and the logical fallacy of the middle ground.

This are by far the worse kind of agnostics. They think they can elude stating their position by claiming you can't prove or disprove the existence of a creator (like other agnostics) but what differentiates from them is that, based on it, they justify their god-like superiority over the unknown and the known.

What if the Christian god turn out to be true one?

Oh, but we can't know for sure the agnostic says

Yes, but what if it is?

Then I'm sure he'll understand why I lived with no strings attached and no one to pray to, for I thought I was the god of myself and the things around me.

But Christian god hates agnostics even more than atheists.

"So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth" (Revelation 3:16)

Oh, then I guess the superior mortal life I lived will compensate for the pain of my eternal soul in hell.

Of course, the "I'm better than you agnostic" doesn't consider the possibility of a personal revengeful god, he's just agnostic about the benevolent kind of gods or the concept of god itself, anything that poses a threat to his mental comfort, he's atheist about. Thus, one more time, the hypocrisy of agnostics is revealed.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:08:46 2011 No.2292758

>>2292720

I used 'hardcore' to make the distinction between standard agnostics, who recognize that their knowledge of the existence of God is incomplete and still acknowledge they do have a classifiable belief relating to the existence of God from the people, like you, who do not recognize that they must have a classifiable belief relating to the existence of God.

From your reaction it seems perfectly obvious that you don't care for what words actually mean, but instead the reactions they might cause.

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:11:46 2011 No.2292768

>>2292732

Believe is the key word and belief is an active action. If you do not partake of the action of believing then you do not believe. Atheism is the default position for someone without a complete knowledge of the possibility of God existing.

Most agnostics are atheists, but will not admit it because of how others might look at them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:15:46 2011 No.2292787 <div class="math">\def \bvsdgfsd {\bvsdgfsd \bvsdgfsd}</div>

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:16:46 2011 No.2292795 cvcvxzxcvz

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:20:46 2011 No.2292818
File: 904 KB, 3000x3000, 1268899195644.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>2292752
Here we have the wrathful Christian.

I thought jesus taught you to turn the other cheek faggot.

And no my views are not lukewarm this is where Theists and Atheists fail to see the agnostic point of view.

Agnostics do not cater to either of your mindsets or beliefs. It is because we question instead of wholeheartedly agreeing with anything viable put in front of us. Oh and we hate both of you because of the childish preconceptions you try to force on everyone. Not to mention the constant berating of anyone who shares a different viewpoint than either of you. You both are the bane of the human race.

Bible = A book written by ancient sheep fuckers

Big Bang theory = Fails to give answer to who or what created matter or sparked the big bang

Fuck you both. You are equally retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:22:46 2011 No.2292832 >>2292818 There need not a being which caused the big bang. It is an error to think that is the case without providing evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:23:46 2011 No.2292833 It's great being an agnostic atheist. It's logical to think there is no god, but I don't claim to be right. Someone pointed out that it's lose-lose for agnostics.. Well, It's a win-win for agnostic atheists. Suckers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:26:46 2011 No.2292850 >>2292832 I never said that I thought that did I. Nor did I imply it. But the question still remains to be answered. Where did matter come from? What sparked the big bang? Get back to me when you find out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:29:46 2011 No.2292867 >>2292833 >implying anything you just typed out had any bearing on anything important Nobody cares about you or what you think.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:29:46 2011 No.2292869 File: 9 KB, 301x61, BakashWorship.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I believe that nature is god. Does that make me: theist, agnostic, or atheist? pic unrelated, my captcha: bakash worship

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:29:46 2011 No.2292873 <div class="math">\bvsdgfsd</div>

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:32:46 2011 No.2292892 /sci/ - Atheism/Agnostism/Theism and Carl Sagan worship

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:34:46 2011 No.2292913 >>2290259 i am an agnostic atheist because though the existence of a god seems highly unlikely, i do not have the means to factually assert this by proving it correct with evidence.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:36:46 2011 No.2292923 >>2292869 That makes you an Animist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:37:46 2011 No.2292931 >>2292913 Now this is a rational opinion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:37:46 2011 No.2292934 >>2292869 You are a pantheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:38:46 2011 No.2292936

>>2292850

I misread your response. Let me give you the more general response to your line of thought: There need be a cause for the big bang. It is an error to think that is the case without providing evidence.

No one knows a damn thing about the origin of the universe. Belief in any theory relating to it is not necessary. Non-belief is the default position to all possible theories.

>>2292869

That makes you a twat who uses the word God to fit in while not saying anything particularly important.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:42:46 2011 No.2292952 >>2292867 And yet you took the time to reply. Well done.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:43:46 2011 No.2292958 >Another stupid religion thread >223 posts and 15 images ommitted >ohboyherewego.jpg >no ones opinion changed >everyone's time wasted >/sci/

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:43:46 2011 No.2292961 >>2292936 Didn't astronomers claim that the universe did not need a cause to exist (Nothing caused it)?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 19:48:46 2011 No.2292985

>>2292958
Humanity will rage on this topic forever. At least in this part the Bible got it right.

Eccl.3:11 "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end."

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 22:00:46 2011 No.2293616

>>2292818
>Here we have the wrathful Christian.
Wrong, I'm atheist. Perhaps it was constantly being wrong when making any statement that pushed you to agnosticism in the first place.

>I thought jesus taught you to turn the other cheek faggot.
Name calling, how typical from "I'm better than you agnostics".

>And no my views are not lukewarm this is where Theists and Atheists fail to see the agnostic point of view.
I never said they were, I said it was Christian God the one who views them as such. But of course, "I'm better than you agnostics" can't think on other beings higher than themselves.

>Agnostics do not cater to either of your mindsets or beliefs.
Only an "I'm better than you agnostics" thinks "catering" is the central issue. Show me an agnostic that hates being one and I'll show you the only true agnostic.

>It is because we question instead of wholeheartedly agreeing with anything viable put in front of us.
So questioning is now patrimony of agnostics? How pedantic you must be to truly believe you have reached a higher state of being by refusing to deal with unanswered questions, unless you have all the answers, that wouldn't surprise me if it's coming from an "I'm better than you agnostic"

>Oh and we hate both of you because of the childish preconceptions you try to force on everyone.
My only preconceptions are the ones you have preconceived about me. Because, of course, "I'm better than you agnostics" know what atheists think better than atheists, know what Christians think better than Christians. They don't reject God simply because there might be a chance they are him, what else could give them the right to pass judgement on everyone else?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 22:00:46 2011 No.2293621

>>2293616

>Not to mention the constant berating of anyone who shares a different viewpoint than either of you. You both are the bane of the human race.
I respect Christians and other atheists as well, as long as they are able to express their views in a coherent manner. What I can't stand are childish morons that constantly need to remind everyone else they are better than them simply because they refuse to say if they believe or not in God (aka most agnostics).

>Bible = A book written by ancient sheep fuckers
So what if the sheep fucker's God is the true one? If you claim to be agnostic you must regard each God as equally plausible in the absence of knowledge that can prove the contrary. Saying "but it's less probable" is just a poor probabilistic fallacy (there can't be probabilities without something measurable, and God is not) used to justify your implicit atheism about Christian God.

So the only logical explanation for your rejection of Christian God (or any personal God) is that you don't believe they exist. Making you an atheist about them. This is what makes you an hypocrite. You can't selectively be agnostic about just the notion of God you have or happen to like, you must consider each possibility as equally valid in the absence of knowledge.

>Big Bang theory = Fails to give answer to who or what created matter or sparked the big bang
You are assuming matter needs to be created, why couldn't it have always existed? How can you claim to KNOW matter was created? That is your fundamental dogma.

>Fuck you both. You are equally retarded.
Ad hominem, the best argument an agnostic can present

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 22:02:46 2011 No.2293627 <span class="math">\newcommand{\hfghbfnjdffg}[1]{\displaystyle{#1 \atop {#1~~#1}}}[/spoiler]<span class="math">[/spoiler]

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 22:04:46 2011 No.2293634 >>2293627 You know you can just disable js? That won't slow things down for me

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 3 22:08:46 2011 No.2293641 File: 34 KB, 381x329, full_retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Troll thread about religion >231 posts and 14 image replies omitted When will you people learn?

Anonymous Mon Jan 3 22:53:46 2011 No.2293801

>Republicans vs Democrats
>Theists vs atheists
>Pepsi vs Coke
>Black vs White

The only overlapping opinions in every argument is there cannot be any other option. Why? Why do faith and beliefs have to be so limited? We are humans -- we can think more abstractly than two rigid systems.

Anonymous Tue Jan 4 01:37:25 2011 No.2293801,1 [INTERNAL]

>>2293801
It's called rational thought, two opposed concepts can't coexist together at the same time in the same space. You can have void and then something but not void and something at the same time and space. There's also no middle term between them. So either god exists (most common definition being the creator) or he doesn't.

You can't go in life basing your everyday decisions on knowledge but belief or lack of it. Agnostic is the person who thinks god is the exception when dealing with beliefs or lack of them. Why? I can only assume they think that differentiates them from atheists and theists, like not wanting to be neither nerd or a jock. It's a matter of ideological fashion.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]