/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2780474]

Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.2780494]

PICK A BLOODY RELIGION AND STAY WITH IT, AGNOSTICFAGS! YOU DESERVE A GOOD BITCHSLAPPING FOR BEING INDECISIVE PUSSIES!

/thread

[Anonymous No.2780496]

Oh, look. It's fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.2780506]

I agree with first post, you're an indecisive pussy who needs to figure out where the hell they stand... I'm an Atheist, who was once a practicing Jew/Christian... Turned atheist by all the Evangelical bullshit and after going to college and seeing religion for what it really is... That's where I stand GOD IS DEAD..

[Anonymous No.2780514]

>>2780506

dude, god is a creator and plays no role in our lives.
I understand your disillusionment, but there's a reason why we are here.

btw christianity is a scam, make your own religion.

[Anonymous No.2780520]

>>2780514

>dude, god is a creator and plays no role in our lives

S'up, deistfag.

[Anonymous No.2780531]

>>2780520

nah dude, I'm more of an eclectic

[Anonymous No.2780549]

Agnostics: "WE SUPERIOR CAUSE WE WORSHIP UNCERTAINTY! XD"

[Anonymous No.2780551]

Former agnostic here. I was afraid god existed, but then realized he didn't even exist in the first place. Now living as a chill atheist.

[Anonymous No.2780571]

>>2780551

eclectic dude here.

riddle me this, if matter is neither created nor destroyed, how does matter exist?

[Anonymous No.2780597]

>>2780531

I have a vaguely universalist view of the world; that anyone who believes in peace and brotherhood can go to heaven regardless of their religious beliefs. That would of course exclude Islamofascism and atheofascism, the world's two most intolerant and un-brotherly religions.

[Anonymous No.2780606]

>>2780571
>if matter is neither created nor destroyed, how does matter exist?
The only possible answers are:

1. Matter/Energy has always existed.
2. Matter/Energy actually can be created under special circumstances.

A god/deity doesn't help explain either case (you could say god is that "special case" but that isn't an explanation)

[Anonymous No.2780607]

>>2780597

what makes you so sure that heaven exists and not reincarnation?

[Anonymous No.2780609]

I would say I am agnostic, and not because of any uncertainty.

I used to be a real hardcore atheist, now I think Ive just chilled out. I'd say I am agnostic because I feel spiritual, while I dont acknowledge there is a God.

My healthcare economics professor once just stated that, to be an atheist has to accept the concept of a God, and that if you truly didnt believe in God you must have no concept of what a God is. I feel like thats semi-true. Atheists are rallying against some specific notions of what a God is (an invisible and all powerful sky man, and his monotheistic followers), and they are indefense of something equally specific (rationality, logic)

I mean, I dont like close minded people, or people who have a very specific idea of what is correct. And atheists are very much arrogant like that. Its not because I disagree, I just think its better to have sympathy with those you disagree with. its better to listen, without prejudice, and learn from religions than to out-right hate them.

[Anonymous No.2780611]

apathy = freedom

Agnostics are the only people that can be truly content with their lives.

[Anonymous No.2780613]

Basically agnosticism is a position for those who are too ball-less to take any risk.

Real men believe in god.

[Anonymous No.2780621]

I'm a deist.

[Anonymous No.2780625]

>>2780607

It might. I never claimed it didn't.

[eclectic No.2780627]

>>2780606

>1. Matter/Energy has always existed.

Universe is 14 billion years old, there was a beginning

>2. Matter/Energy actually can be created under special circumstances.

God isn't a magical floating cloud dude like christianity makes him out to be, god is the universe and everything in it. you are a part of god.

Matter can only be created when the universe is completely empty. Spontaneously matter and antimatter form in perfect proportion.

Universe eventually dies and returns to empty, where another new universe forms. This process repeats forever and you are reborn infinitely many times.

[Anonymous No.2780628]

>>2780611
You're thinking of apatheists, then.

[Anonymous No.2780636]

>>2780609

>Atheists are rallying against some specific notions of what a God is (an invisible and all powerful sky man, and his monotheistic followers)

Right. They create a strawman god (usually some angry OT type that roams the countryside and strikes people dead for disobeying him) and demand that Christians prove its existence.

[Anonymous No.2780641]

>>2780474
>implying the point is to pick the "safest" choice. Go cry yourself to sleep, fence-sitter.

[Anonymous No.2780644]

>>2780627
the idea of the big bang is not so much a beginning point necessarily, but the point where at least things begin to make sense within our ability to think. its an expansion from an infinitely small point that expands indefinitely expending all energy and floating off forever

[Anonymous No.2780645]

Muslim is the only safe position, because they might behead you, if you don't share their faith.

[Anonymous No.2780648]

>>2780627
>>2780627
>>2780627
>>2780627

Holy shit, stop stating it as a fact. That kinda shit is why I -truly- hate religious people.

[Scientist No.2780651]

>>2780474
There are two commonly accepted definitions of agnosticism. Allow me to refute both.

>Ignorance, the only safe religious position.
That's not a position. That's ignorance. Go out and read a book.

>Strong agnosticism, the position that it is not knowable by humans whether there is a god - is the only safe religious position.

And this is simply wrong. We have evidence for a materialistic world and against the existence of miracles. No miracles -> no god.

And don't even mention a non-interfering god. That's a strawman. Almost no one believes in such a deist god. And basically all atheists really are Strong Agnostic about such non-interfering gods.

[Anonymous No.2780655]

>>2780636
LOL, no. Like you could prove the existence of ANY god. I'll even let you pick your favorite "version". It's your show, your definition and your burden of proof.

[Anonymous No.2780657]

>>2780627
>Universe is 14 billion years old, there was a beginning
Yes, which falls under case 2, matter can be created during special circumstances.

>God isn't a magical floating cloud dude like christianity makes him out to be, god is the universe and everything in it. you are a part of god.
Nonsense and wordplay. Either give an explicit definition of god, or stop trying to mix or equate it with the universe.
If you wanna call the universe god, that's fine, but then you're just calling matter/space/time by another word.

>Universe eventually dies and returns to empty, where another new universe forms. This process repeats forever and you are reborn infinitely many times.
Our current understanding is that the universe is just going to stop and reach maximum entropy, and after that there will be nothing more.

[eclectic No.2780662]

>>2780648

i'll use logic to explain to you why I am right.

The universe had to have a beginning. Before the universe began there had to be nothing. Mass and Energy were conserved during creation by an equal amount of matter and antimatter being created so that there is a zero sum.

Eventually the universe will die somehow and there will be nothing again.

The cycle repeats forever.

pure logic.

[Scientist No.2780665]

>>2780657
>Yes, which falls under case 2, matter can be created during special circumstances.
Please see:

>'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

32:25 - Theorists like me knew the answer. The universe must be flat. Why? Well there are two reasons. There's the one I normally say, which is "it's the only mathematically beautiful universe", which is true. But there's another reason that I don't usually say - talk about, but I'll talk about here. It turns out that in a flat universe the total energy of the universe is precisely zero, (be)cause gravity can have negative energy, so the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter. What's so beautiful about a universe with total energy zero? Well only such a universe can begin from nothing. And that is remarkable, because the laws of physics allow a universe to begin from nothing. You don't need a deity. You have nothing, zero total energy, and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.

40:33 - The universe is flat. It has zero total energy. And it could have began from nothing. And I've written a piece - although of course I've gotten a lot of hate mail - saying that in my mind it answers this crazy question that religious people keep throwing out which is "Why is there something rather than nothing?". The answer is there had to be. If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something. It's that simple. It doesn't convince any of those people but it's true.

[Anonymous No.2780671]

>>2780636
>Right. They create a strawman god (usually some angry OT type that roams the countryside and strikes people dead for disobeying him) and demand that Christians prove its existence.
Atheists don't create them, they just respond to ridiculous claims like the earth is 6000 years old and so on.

[Anonymous No.2780673]

>>2780651
How could you possibly have evidence against miracles?

Just complete bullshit, and I don't even believe in miracles.

[eclectic No.2780678]

>>2780657

>If you wanna call the universe god, that's fine, but then you're just calling matter/space/time by another word.

we are all part of one huge thing, the universe. When I say god, I mean the universe.

>Our current understanding is that the universe is just going to stop and reach maximum entropy, and after that there will be nothing more.

all matter in the universe will cease to exist when this happens and the cycle will begin once more.

[Anonymous No.2780687]

>>2780665
>and quantum fluctuations can produce a universe.
those are the "special circumstances", retard.
or are you word-picking on my use of "created"?

[eclectic No.2780694]

>>2780687

here are the "special circumstances" that are needed to create a universe.

1) nothing can exist

once this condition is met, a universe will spontaneously form

[Anonymous No.2780696]

>>2780607

My belief is that only the truly good go to heaven and the rest are merely reincarnated ad infinitum until they're worthy enough. If hell exists, I believe it's only for guys like Hitler.

[Anonymous No.2780697]

>>2780671

What percentage of theists are christians?

What percentage of christians care enough to consider thinks like how old the world is?

What percentage of them came to the conclusion is was 6000 years old?

What percentage of christians do you think actively go around claiming the earth is 6000 years old, like some angry ausberger syndrome?

[Anonymous No.2780702]

>>2780665
so basically quantum fluctuations are Atheist's god of the gaps or is there some science here we can actually utilize?

[Scientist No.2780703]

>>2780673
I have evidence against a second moon around Earth, an element between hydrogen and helium, and various other negatives. One can demonstrate that a negative is true beyond all reasonable doubt with sufficient evidence. We've been looking for miracles for many years now, and we still have yet to find a single well documented occurrence of the suspensions of physical laws. That's your evidence against miracles.

It's the same kind of evidence against the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. They've never been seen, even though we should have seen them by now, so they don't exist.

[Anonymous No.2780707]

>>2780678
>we are all part of one huge thing, the universe. When I say god, I mean the universe.
so you're not talking about a deity then?
good, then you are an atheist, like me.
>all matter in the universe will cease to exist when this happens and the cycle will begin once more.
no, all the matter will still be there, just not moving anymore.

[Scientist No.2780708]

>>2780687
That's not what you think it means. It's quantum theory. Matter is created all the time in spontaneous particle antiparticle pair creation. He's suggesting /the exact same mechanism/ that happens all the time also created the universe.

Learn some quantum theory.

[Anonymous No.2780709]

>>2780703

>I havent seen them, so they dont exist

[Anonymous No.2780713]

>>2780703

Many people claim to have had religious experiences, but no one has ever claimed to have seen the tooth fairy. That is why this common atheist argument fails.

[eclectic No.2780715]

>>2780696

your DNA is your body. You as a person can be defined by the sequence of DNA. In each iteration of the universe, your sequence of DNA either exists or does not. You are only conscious of the universes in which your DNA sequence exists.

when you die, the universe eventually ends afterwards and a new one forms. You might exist in the new one or not. Either way, that universe ends and another forms. This happens infinitely many times with your DNA occuring infinitely many times in every possible situation ever.

pretty cool huh?

[Anonymous No.2780722]

The root of the atheist argument is that a physical human being cannot somehow, whimsically, decide to create life and then troll on them for the time they exist. God is the ultimate troll.

[Anonymous No.2780725]

I hate it when you science worshippers talk about how godly the universe is.

How arbirary! So what, its the whole entirity of everytihng. Why worship it based off that condition? Why not worship half of everything? Why not worship french toast? Why not worship some special chunk of matter which is just as special as anything else?

Its ridiculous!

[Anonymous No.2780731]

>>2780709

You know the rules. If James Randi didn't see it, it didn't happen. Because as we all know, he's the ultimate source of authority on the universe.

[eclectic No.2780733]

>>2780707

>no, all the matter will still be there, just not moving anymore.

the force of gravity will pull all matter back together where it will eventually collapse in on itself in a black hole.

the universe will be empty at some point in the future.

[Anonymous No.2780734]

MMMmmm delicious Baptist modding.

So, Jebus is an sciunz, because mods are Protestants.

[Anonymous No.2780737]

>>2780697
>What percentage of theists are christians?
A large chunk, about 1/4 of the worlds population are Christan.
>What percentage of christians care enough to consider thinks like how old the world is?
>What percentage of them came to the conclusion is was 6000 years old?
>What percentage of christians do you think actively go around claiming the earth is 6000 years old, like some angry ausberger syndrome?
Probably a larger number than atheist being "arrogant".

[Scientist No.2780740]

>>2780713
And lots of people have claimed to see aliens. After going through the evidence, we've explained away quite well all alien sightings, just like we've explained away all purported firsthand "miracle" evidence.

Related: This is a required video for everyone on /sci/. Just 10 min.

Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

[eclectic No.2780741]

>>2780722

>God is the ultimate troll.

Who created the character known as god? They are the ultimate trolls.

(council of nicea earns the gold medal for trolling)

[Anonymous No.2780752]

>>2780737

Saying "probably a larger number than arrogant atheists" is the equivalent of saying "They arent as horrible as us, because there are more of them"

If you want to attack the concept of God, you attack it fundamentally, you dont attack christians, you attack the concept of God. If you want to attack christians you attack them.

[Anonymous No.2780754]

>>2780733
>the force of gravity will pull all matter back together where it will eventually collapse in on itself in a black hole.
If the universe reaches maximum entropy, not even gravity can do any work.

[Anonymous No.2780758]

>>2780627
lol, you are mistaken.

for matter to exist, there cannot be an equal proportion of antimatter. the ratio of mater to antimatter must be in favour of matter if anyhintg can come into being. otherwise, they would annihilate each other quickly.

so this is where the mystery is. for anything to exist, it must somehow be created out of nothing, even allowing for some antimatter and matter which cancel each other out.

[Anonymous No.2780759]

>>2780506
>SouthParkEpisodeWhereDumbFucksSayProfessorsAtCollegeOpenedTheirEyes.jpg

[Anonymous No.2780765]

>>2780740

I never understood why the skeptics dismiss UFOs. They're not even a supernatural thing, but a part of the physical objective universe.

[Anonymous No.2780766]

MMMmmm delicious Mods modding /sci/.

Hey, where is the longman thread, mod-fucktards?

[Scientist No.2780771]

>>2780758
Protip: Google CPT symmetry. There is reason to think that spontaneous pair creation combined with other forces could result in a universe dominated by matter and not anti-matter.

[Anonymous No.2780780]

>>2780752
>Saying "probably a larger number than arrogant atheists" is the equivalent of saying "They arent as horrible as us, because there are more of them"
It was a response to:
>I mean, I dont like close minded people, or people who have a very specific idea of what is correct. And atheists are very much arrogant like that.

>If you want to attack the concept of God, you attack it fundamentally, you dont attack christians, you attack the concept of God. If you want to attack christians you attack them.
Yeah, I know. I haven't attacked any christans.

[eclectic No.2780786]

>>2780758

>for matter to exist, there cannot be an equal proportion of antimatter. the ratio of mater to antimatter must be in favour of matter if anyhintg can come into being. otherwise, they would annihilate each other quickly.

here's where shit gets crazy. our universe has 2 timelines and we are on one of them. i'll draw a picture. the x is the beginning of our universe

(-)--------x---------(+)

antimatter particles are particles which move "backwards in time" there's an equal amount of matter and anti matter, but our side of the timeline has more positive matter than antimatter.

[Anonymous No.2780787]

>>2780766
>MMMmmm delicious
>conspiracy theories
it's a nice tactic to pretend that you're the oppressed one.

[Scientist No.2780806]

>>2780765
Because of the Neil deGrasse Tyson video. He's cautious, and refuses to deny the existence of alien visitations.

I'll go that extra small step, and deny them based upon the available evidence. Alien abductees and miracle observers have similar aspects to their reports that lead us to believe that they're entirely full of shit, for various reasons.

[Anonymous No.2780835]

The only kinds of gods that can still exist are the untampering, undetectable ones. To still insist any of the gods we've dreamed up so far are real, is delusional insanity.

Until one shows up and can be verified, it's safe to say there isn't one. I welcome the possibility, but I only deal in probablilities and not imaginative opinions.

[Anonymous No.2780870]

>>2780606
The third possibility:
The total energy of the universe is zero.

[Anonymous No.2781075]

there is no "safe" religious position because if there is no afterlife then there's nothing to be safe from, and if there is then God doesn't want luke warm participants.

[Anonymous No.2782718]

Athiest: do you believe in god
Agnostic: no, i am unsure
Athiest: so you're athiest then, if you don't believe you're an athiest, an agnostic athiest but an athiest none the less.
Thiest: stop forcing your beliefs on other people!

[Anonymous No.2782734]

>Safe
Ahh finally an agnostic who admits they say they are agnostic out of FEAR!
Cowards all.

[Anonymous No.2782763]

>>2782734
>out of FEAR
That's fine, it shows skepticism, probably way better than hippie atheists.

[Anonymous No.2782772]

>>2780627
the universe is 14 billion years old.
Before that, big bang theory suggests that energy was extremely condensed, but it was there. Basically, the universe as we know it, as it is now, already had the energy from before that phase. L2 /sci/

[Anonymous No.2782779]

>>2782772
So God used that energy to create the big bang

[Anonymous No.2782793]

>>2782772
lol.
What energy.
TIP:flat universe.

[Anonymous No.2782800]

>>2782779
actually no.

'before' the big bang there was no time. causality requires a cause to occur before an event, there was no 'before' the big bang, so nothing could have caused it.

doesn't matter what properties you give to your 'cause/god/gaia' it's just a fundemental fact that there can be and there is no cause for the big bang.

[Anonymous No.2782802]

>>2780752

I think it is a mistake to consider the superstitious elements of religion in the same exact breath as the ideological. One can be attacked because there is nothing to go on but the word of honor of people we have probably never met. The other can be attacked because it is often dogmatic and corrupt, and almost always espouses at least some tenets that are immoral.

Now, if the superstitious elements could be substantiated, it would lend additional credence to the ideological, but this is not so.

[Anonymous No.2782805]

>>2782800
Then where did the energy come from?

[Anonymous No.2782809]

>I consider the universe to be god.

To those who say this; in what way would this differ from the universe as observed and agreed upon? We can mostly agree the universe exists and operates according to natural laws. If it also has additional personal traits, some sort of agency, then it is this that must be demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.2782812]

>>2782805
see
>>2782793

[Anonymous No.2782815]

>>2782805

I don't know is a better answer to this than god.

Why? Because we have no data either way. Could it be god? Sure, but there is nothing to back that up. It could be black-holes in other universes, turtling all the way back to infinity. It could be a computer simulation of a universe that is real to us. Who knows? Nobody.

[Anonymous No.2782825]

>>2782815
Google knows the answer!

[Anonymous No.2782826]

>>2782805
sensible question, causality didn't exist 'before', so energy and matter could pop in and out of existence in harmony with the quantum fluctuation of the singularity and as the curvature was infinite this means that any large neough fluctuation would have reduced the curvature causing what we now know as the big bang
>>2782815
you herp so har you derp.
We have no idea, so god, has been what people in cave used to say. WE don't live in caves anymore, we have a much deeper understanding.

[Anonymous No.2782833]

I'm surprised no one has hit you with the image yet.

BAM!

As for the troll thread. Meh. 4/10.

[Anonymous No.2782847]

>>2782833
GT: I am certain of my belief in god
GA: I am certain of my non-belief in god
AT: I have a collection of plausible beliefs that may or may not include god
AA: I have a collection of plausible beliefs that may or may not include god..


sounds legit.

[Anonymous No.2782859]

>>2782847
you're bad at 4chan

[Anonymous No.2782860]

>>2780474
That's completely untrue, consider this example:

Firstly note that any religious explanation of the universe is no more likely than any other, as there is no evidence to suggest any given one. Then take a religion which simply states "Anyone who is agnostic shall experience everything bad as an afterlife", we can generate an infinite number of such religions by taking this as a central condition to a set of religions. Then there are infinite religions which punish you for being agnostic, thus agnosticism is no more 'safe' than any other religious choice.

[Anonymous No.2782861]

I once talked to a guy that said you couldn't be a true skeptic unless you were an atheist. I still don't get that.

[Anonymous No.2782863]

So what's the difference between agnosticism and freethought?

[Anonymous No.2782866]

>>2782847
That's a complete bastardization.

[Anonymous No.2782876]

>>2782863
provide your definitions and /sci/ will gleefully let you know.

[Anonymous No.2782878]

>>2782861
Are you kidding?
Skeptics I'm sure you will agree are defined as those who are skeptical of ideas presented to them.
So then a given skeptic will take some questionable idea and treat it with skepticism.

Consider a skeptic presented with religion, by definition the skeptic is skeptical, therefore does not believe in the thing being presented and thus is athiest (definition of which being something along the lines of not believing in religious mumbo jumbo)

[Anonymous No.2782886]

so language is subjective but there is consensus on the meaning of words...most of the time. situations where there is a handful therms that all relate to a handful of abstract and highly similar ideas can inhibit any clear consensus from forming.
Here is what I think:

I can't prove or disprove the existence of god, therefore, officially, i consider it an unknown. That being said, I do not put an unrealistic amount of stock in the possibility, because I intuitively feel that it is more likely that god does not exist than that god does exist.

Somebody, please tell me what I am.

[Anonymous No.2782887]

>>2782866
if collections of beliefs form your basis, this is what you get.

[Anonymous No.2782890]

>>2782886
agnostic atheist

[Anonymous No.2782897]

>>2782887
>collections of beliefs
agnostic-atheism

please make some sense of this

[Anonymous No.2782898]

>>2782890

neat!

[Anonymous No.2782902]

>>2782897
so agnostic theists don't have collections plausable of beliefs? then what are they unsure about?

[Anonymous No.2782904]

"Agnosticism" implies an equivalency between the theist and atheist positions, and is therefore making just as much of an assertion. This defeats the purpose of most agnostics, who identify as such specifically to avoid asserting anything.

An atheist would call it this:

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

and be reminded of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russel%27s_teapot

It is not automatically reasonable to take the "middle ground" with regards to unprovable claims, like a teapot orbiting the sun, the existence of leprachuans, or the existence of some intelligence worthy of being called "god."

And this is before one even gets into the argument of whether something coherent even corresponds to the term "god," or what definition applies, or whether conceptions are self-contradictory.

[Anonymous No.2782913]

>>2782887
What? What makes it a bastardization is the fact that neither plausibility, nor personal certainty are characteristics of those beliefs.

[Anonymous No.2782914]

>>2782863

Agnostic atheism

Well, I'm assuming your "intuition" just means that you haven't seen any convincing evidence of a god?

I also "intuitively" think that leprechauns don't exist :-).

[Anonymous No.2782918]

>>2782902
Enough with the plausibility already. Plausibility has *nothing* to do with this.

[Anonymous No.2782922]

>>2782902

"A theist agnostic is someone who believes in gods, but thinks that they could not know for sure that their god exists. Another fairly unusual position, as people who have faith in gods usually also think that their god can be known to be real."

[Anonymous No.2782925]

>>2782913
personal certainty seems integral to the division of gnosticism and agnosticism ("i know" "i don't know").

if you are unsure, then by definition there's another belief lingering in the back of your mind.

[Anonymous No.2782930]

Wow! What a beautiful thread! I haven't even seen one reference to a Bible verse yet :-).

[Anonymous No.2782931]

knowledge is "true, justified belief"
if you have evidence to prove/justify a belief, you have gained knowledge

agnosticists say that you cannot prove god's (non) existence, therefore you cannot know whether he exists or not
however, believing in something does not require knowledge of it
thus, you can still admit that you can never KNOW 100% sure, but still BELIEVE in god's (non) existence

if you say "when i look at the beauty of nature, i don't see how all of this happened by chance, thus i believe in (a) god, but i don't claim to know with 100% certainty that this god exists or that his existence could be proven. still, i find it very plausible that he does, seeing how complex the universe is", then you are an agnostic theist

if you say "well, i believe all this could very well have happened by chance. i don't think a god was needed for life/the universe to exist, and i find it very unplausible to assume that a god exists. thus, i don't believe there is a god, but i cannot say with certaincy that he definitely doesn't" then you're an agnostic atheist

you see, agnosticism and (a)theism aren't mutually exclusive

also, agnosticism isn't "neither believing nor disbelieving" or "neither being an atheist nor a theist"

"do you believe in (a) god?" and "do you think the existence of a god could be proven?" are two different questions
if the answer to the first one is "i don't know/i don't care", it doesn't necessarily make you agnostic, it makes you undecided/indifferent, which is something completely else
if the answer to the latter one is "no", then THAT makes you agnostic

i know i have been trolled, but whatever

TL;DR agnosticism=/=not giving a fuck
(a)theism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive
also, the game

[Anonymous No.2782937]

>>2782930
Well in that case, let there be references!

[Anonymous No.2782940]

OP and other fags read the picture.

[Anonymous No.2782947]

>>2782940
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.2782949]

>>2782925
>>2782913

Yes. You're right 2782925.

Here's a pretty good breakdown of the situation:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/

Also, it's important to remember that these are just labels. The substance of your ideology or belief is what's really important. If you don't fit in one of these categories, there probably is another label you can find or invent.

[Anonymous No.2782951]

>>2782876

Agnosticism - Skeptical of the existence of a higher being, therefore there's no belief of it.

Freethought - Acceptance through logic/proof and reasoning.

I think both are kinda interchangeable?

[Anonymous No.2782952]

ITT Atheists proving they don't understand balance.

[Anonymous No.2782953]

>>2782931
an hero

[Anonymous No.2782961]

>>2782925
It's about knowability, not personal knowledge. An agnostic view on anything is the assertion that the validity of a premise is (inherently) unknowable. An agnostic theist, for example, is a believer who acknowledges God's inherent unknowability. Of course this person may also be uncertain about whether the God he believes in even exists or not, but this uncertainty is not what definitionally characterizes agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.2782966]

Why are you all so hateful? Can't you just accept that god is basically the creator of everything. He loves you, so chill out and go with it.

[Anonymous No.2782969]

>>2782966
He gave me a small knob. You call this love?

[Anonymous No.2782973]

>>2782966

Please provide a reference such as a Bible verse.

[Anonymous No.2782975]

>>2780474

Dude, you realize that if god exists, he's not going to let you in to heaven just because you "kept your mind open to the possibility he exists". You have to go all in with that shit.

Agnosticism is actually the only no-win position. God is either of the utmost importance, or of no importance. But it can't be of mild importance.

[Anonymous No.2782981]

>>2782961
I accept.

[Anonymous No.2782983]

>>2782969

Maybe you were a pagan or a jew in a past life. Maybe you were gay?

[Anonymous No.2782989]

Theists: follow your Iron age religious cults,

Agnostics : Go be an indecisive little whelp who can't make up their mind about anything..

Atheists: Make the Okhams Razor argument the only position which makes logical sense of any kind..

[Anonymous No.2782990]

>>2782975

God's first mistake was that he let me see the truth. The Bible was written by men!

[Anonymous No.2782991]

>>2782975
If you pick the wrong god, you are just as fucked.

[Anonymous No.2782997]

>>2782989
>still lumping Agnostics with Theists and Atheists

Well, there's your problem.

[Anonymous No.2782998]

>Mfw This thread is 2 days old

>MFW god is dead and agnostics can't see the truth because they are retarded

[Anonymous No.2783003]

No I'm not lumping them together, Words have a definition retard, Agnosticism =/ Atheist =/ Theism...

Unless you were being sarcastic, you are a flat out utter full on retard who has no reading comprehension skills

[Anonymous No.2783004]

>>2782947
care to explain? pic's definition makes much more sense

[Anonymous No.2783014]

wow, that eclectic dude surprised me

i didn't know there were such high level broscientists on /sci/

[Anonymous No.2783116]

>>2782997

Exactly. It's ((Atheists-Agnostics)-Deists)-Theists.

Meaning atheists and agnostics have more in common with each other than with deists, who have more in common with the first two than any have with theists.

[Anonymous No.2783128]

Only thing the Atheists have in common with the Agnostics is that they both have some form of critical thinking skills

Theists are just like ''Hurpa durp'' let's follow iron age religionz

[Anonymous No.2783145]

Soup'

[Anonymous No.2783399]

>>2782886
You're a pussy who still thinks there is a possibility of a man in the sky pulling the strings.