/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 41 KB, 340x500, wtf2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 10:44:17 2011 No.3637198 [Reply] [Original]

Since when do shitty atheists have a right to redefine agnosticism?

From the dictionary:

AGNOSTIC
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

And spamming your desperate little MSPaint propaganda doesn't cut it for an argument against a long-standing definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 10:47:17 2011 No.3637203 >unknown and unknowable Epistemology, not Ontology.

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Aug 27 10:48:17 2011 No.3637207 >>3637198 FSM and invisible pink unicorn are also 'unkown and unknowable' it doesn't matter, they still don't exist, same as god doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 10:56:17 2011 No.3637226 >>3637198 >Synonyms: nonbeliever Wut? Anyway, enjoy being "agnostic" about Santa Claus, OP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 10:56:17 2011 No.3637234 >>3637207 >Implying we are concerned with that women think.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 10:58:17 2011 No.3637237 All the dictionary and thesaurus things you listed are compatible with atheism. Way to fuck over your own argument, fellow atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 10:58:17 2011 No.3637239 File: 26 KB, 451x476, 1313529243900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3637207 >abbreviating Flying Spaghetti Monster

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 10:59:17 2011 No.3637242 >>3637226 Strawmen, strawmen everywhere

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Aug 27 10:59:17 2011 No.3637247 File: 29 KB, 450x293, 1302629732959.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3637239 problem?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:00:17 2011 No.3637249 SURE IS SCIENCE AND MATH IN HERE

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Aug 27 11:01:17 2011 No.3637253 >>3637242 comparing god to santa claus isn't a strawman. neither have been seen, there is no evidence for the existence of either one of them. you have to be asleep, or santa claus wont come, right? ...god doesnt even bring presents.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:04:17 2011 No.3637272 >>3637253 >god doesnt even bring presents Most idiotic argument to invalidate God ever.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:05:17 2011 No.3637275

>>3637253
Are you seriously that dumb? Santa Claus purportedly comes to your chimney to deliver presents. Now you can verify this by sitting on your roof and waiting for Santa Claus. He doesn't show up, there you verified he doesn't exist!

Now, God on the other hand is a very versatile and METAphysical concept. It is not earthly. You cannot verify his/its nonexistence by sitting on a rooftop. You would (probably) literally need to map the entirety of the known universe and know empirically what is outside the universe, in order to be able to make a statement on whether he exists.

OH WAIT, I THINK I RECALL A NAME FOR SUCH A PROCESS. OH YEAH, IT'S CALLED THE _SCIENTIFIC METHOD_.

There is no reason NOT to apply the scientific method to philosophical beliefs. Agnostics like myself do this. Atheists and theists elect not to, and I respect their faith, but that's simply something I cannot do as a scientist.

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Aug 27 11:07:17 2011 No.3637285 >>3637275 you sit on your roof and santa wont come, you havent disproved his existence. "he sees you when you're sleeping, he knows when you're awake...."

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Aug 27 11:07:17 2011 No.3637287 File: 8 KB, 417x429, agnostic=atheist.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3637275

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:08:17 2011 No.3637288 so are you a gnostic-agnostic or an agnostic-agnostic?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:09:17 2011 No.3637293 File: 48 KB, 720x540, eksluciousbody.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3637287 >>3637285 What a brilliant mind we have here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:16:17 2011 No.3637302 File: 280 KB, 800x873, 1314304961897.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] sa-fuckin-ge

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:16:17 2011 No.3637303 joke's on you guys I am a quantum agnostic

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:17:17 2011 No.3637304 >>3637275 Atheism is lack of belief in a God of any sort. You're an Atheist. Agnosticism is lack of knowledge on whether God exists. You're an Agnostic as well. You're an Agnostic Atheist. Thread is over. By bye thread. See you again in five minutes

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Aug 27 11:21:17 2011 No.3637315 >>3637302 the fuck is this?? and you pronounce it 'sah-gay'? its 'sayyj'

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:24:17 2011 No.3637322 >>3637302 This pic made me laugh.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:33:17 2011 No.3637353 >>3637304 Keep repeating the atheist mantra. No matter how many times you repeat it, it won't make the dictionary definition go away!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:34:17 2011 No.3637356 >>3637353 They gotta find someway to think they're more numerous than they are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:36:17 2011 No.3637359 >>3637315 >doesn't know how to pronounce japanese words

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:39:17 2011 No.3637369 File: 12 KB, 400x400, 2mascotf027[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Synonyms >secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:39:17 2011 No.3637371 >>3637198 Do you propose that self-proclaimed "agnostics" come up with a new word for themselves then? Surely that would solve the problem. /thread

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:39:17 2011 No.3637372 File: 146 KB, 500x369, tumblr_lmrxh5hwJi1qfgb5vo1_500.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:41:17 2011 No.3637375 Would you agnostics just shut the fuck up? You don't believe in god, just like all the atheists and all the atheists know that they cannot know for certain, just like you. Get the fuck over yourselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:43:17 2011 No.3637379 >>3637375 no, they know for certain. if they didn't they'd be agnostics, you bimbo.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:43:17 2011 No.3637380

>>3637371
HURR DURR DERP

How dumb are you? THIS is the definition. THIS is the definition that has been used for over a century. THIS is the original definition.

Agnostics do not have to come up with a new term to suit some e-meme that arbitrarily claims an audacious definition for agnosticism (that it is the same as atheism).

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:43:17 2011 No.3637383

>>3637353
You're equivocating.

One definition of Atheism is the belief or doctrine that there is no God. That is technically a Gnostic Atheist. The other Definition, according to most dictionaries, is simply the lack of belief, or agnostic atheism. It's no big deal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:44:17 2011 No.3637386 >>3637198 Atheists have trouble dealing with the fuzziness of reality. >Kinda like aspies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:44:17 2011 No.3637387 im agnostic cuz if im wrong i want god to say "oh he half-believed" and take me away to heavens :3

>>	EK !EKFQOBUFnQ Sat Aug 27 11:45:17 2011 No.3637391 File: 21 KB, 373x330, xkcd774.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:46:17 2011 No.3637392 >>3637379 You're equivocating as well. Stop it.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:47:17 2011 No.3637394

>>3637383
>The other Definition, according to most dictionaries, is simply the lack of belief, or agnostic atheism. It's no big deal.

"Agnostic atheism" is contradictory following traditional definitions. You have to invent an unambiguous term for your belief so as to not conflate AGNOSTICS with your pseudo-definition of one.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:49:17 2011 No.3637399

>>3637379
"Atheist" is never used absolutely literally you fucking retard. I doubt there's an "atheist" alive who thinks they actually KNOW that there is no god, but since the evidence almost all points to there being no god we live our lives as if there isn't one and call ourselves atheists.

Yes it isn't the most logical way of doing it, but calling yourself agnostic makes it sound more like you think the two positions (theism and atheism) are on a level footing, when they so clearly aren't.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:51:17 2011 No.3637410 >>3637394 theism= belief in god A= lack of A-theism= lack of belief in God I don't see how it's a psuedo definition, every dictionary I've found includes it as one of the definitions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:53:17 2011 No.3637416 Why must we argue over such tedious differences? We are all free thinkers, sceptics and rationalists, so stop quarrelling among yourselves and fucking act like it.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:54:17 2011 No.3637421

Deist God: I don't know and you don't know and nobody knows.

Theist God: I know these things don't exist and you should know better.

Like every single self-professed atheist and agnostic and agnostic-atheist and apatheist in the world.

The confusion arises because apologists typically only defend the deist god, and they typically only present the theist god. Can't prove god doesn't exist? Then Allah exists and Mohammed is his messenger OR God exists and Jesus is his son. Admit you're agnostic about the existence of god in general? Then you're admitting that any god (but really just their favorite god) COULD exist. If they were actually willing to argue earnestly, we wouldn't need to have dictionary wanks over these definitions. But since their entire enterprise is based on their ability to twist semantics and stretch interpretations, they are a lot better at it than we are.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:55:17 2011 No.3637427

>>3637394
forgot to add

Gnostic = knowledge/certainty
A = lack of
A=gnostic = lack of knowledge/certanty... so there you go. Doesn't conflict at all with the definition of atheism, according to the dictionary, but does conflict with the other definition of atheism, according to the dictionary. Words can have slightly different meanings, i.e. the word "theory" and it's layman's definition, and scientific definition.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:57:17 2011 No.3637439 >>3637416 >We are all free thinkers, sceptics and rationalists So am I. And despite all that, I'm not an atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:58:17 2011 No.3637440 >>3637416 To demonstrate where and why religion still exists. >Its the ideology, stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:58:17 2011 No.3637444 >>3637416 It's not nit picking, at least not to me. It's important to lay down these ground walls, otherwise people have the fuel to burn a strawman. A classic example is always the "it's only a theory" line used by creationists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 11:59:17 2011 No.3637446 >>3637427 Nah, Agnostic super cedes Atheist and Theism. If you are Agnostic, you can't be either a theist or an Atheist, because they both assert knowledge or certainty. If you deny Agnosticism, then you can be Atheist or Theist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:01:17 2011 No.3637450 I can't believe i said "ground walls". I must be tired >>3637444

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:03:17 2011 No.3637462 >>3637446 Wrong. For reasons already explained. But one more time can't hurt. Gnostic = knowledge/certainty A = lack of A - gnostic = lack of knowledge/certanty theism = belief in god A = lack of A - theism= lack of belief in God

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:06:17 2011 No.3637473 >>3637446 I would agree that agnostic is not compatible with theism. But gnostic is not compatible with atheism either. You just can't know some things. And you just can't believe some things unless you think you know.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:08:17 2011 No.3637481 >>3637462 Nope. A = away from + Theist = away from god /denial of god. You can't deny something unless you have certainty.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:13:17 2011 No.3637500 >>3637446 I wonder why anyone would call themselves an atheist then. There just isn't a mirror of the kind of belief that theists have on the other side.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:13:17 2011 No.3637501

I hold the opinion that we have no ultimate knowledge as to whether there are transdimensional demons raping my asshole in increments of time so short and utilizing physical principles undiscovered in such a way that my asshole is not a constantly gaping atrocity.

This distinguishes me from the atheist of such an event because I proclaim my lack of knowledge whereas the atheist has the audacity to assume and act as if the non existence of such an event were a practical certainty.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:15:17 2011 No.3637510

>>3637500
For engagement purposes.

I guess you'd have to look at like physics. We assert matter, and some how, inevitably, we have to assert anti-matter.

This isn't to validate religion, but whenever someone asserts the existence of something, the negative of the assertion suddenly exists (psychologically) because that is how humans think.

If it wasn't beneficial to automatically construct dichotomies, I don't think we'd be here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:16:17 2011 No.3637512 >>3637481 provide a source for that please

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:18:17 2011 No.3637525 >>3637501 I'm an atheist and I don't "assume and act as if the non existence of such an event were a practical certainty."

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:21:17 2011 No.3637534 File: 46 KB, 250x227, calabi-yau-space-small.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3637512 http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/a-

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:23:17 2011 No.3637538 File: 30 KB, 400x400, tumblr_lnwh54XN4X1qb6gil.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] can I be an agnostic who believes in something "higher" or it just doesn't work this way?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:24:17 2011 No.3637543 >>3637538 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:24:17 2011 No.3637546

>>3637525

Do you understand what "practical certainty" means? It means you filthy atheists can lounge around as if there were no transdimensional demons raping your asshole at varying speeds while leaving no evidence whilst I, the agnostic, must grapple with the uncertainty of such an event. Oh gosh what if they were transdimensional angels raping my face. Oh you damn atheists, don't you understand the burden of us poor agnostics who have to wrestle with this uncertainty?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:28:17 2011 No.3637555 >>3637207 >so stupid she actually makes declarations about things she admits she cannot know

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:28:17 2011 No.3637556

>>3637534
Cool

"a- (Cyrillic spelling а-)

1. Prefix prepended to words to denote a negation, deprivation or absence of a property denoted by base word.

* a- + socijalan → asocijalan
* a- + simetrija → asimetrija
* a- + brahija → abrahija"

So replace my "lack of" with "absence of"

A - theism = absence of belief
A - gnosticism = absence of knowledge

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:31:17 2011 No.3637567

Atheism: by my means of investigation there appears to be no evidence for God
Theism: by my means of investigation there does appear to be evidence for God
Agnostic: I do not have confidence in any of these means of investigation

TOTALLY DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHIES BRO

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:32:17 2011 No.3637572 >>3637567 or actually Agnostic: there are no means of investigation

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:32:17 2011 No.3637573 >>3637556 one little letter has never meant so much to the asspie war of semantics. >ONWARD, ABWARD, PREWARD AND FOREWORD!

>>	Sat Aug 27 12:33:17 2011 No.3637579 >>3637572 That's a different subset of agnosticism really.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:33:17 2011 No.3637580 >>3637546 To bring your discussing to practicality replace transdimensional demons with libertarians. Then realize how retarded atheism is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:34:17 2011 No.3637581 >>3637556 >cites cyrllic prefix >cites cyrillic words >uses prefix on english word >WINNAR.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:35:17 2011 No.3637583
File: 21 KB, 153x227, notrelated.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Self-proclaimed agnostic here.

I have no fucking idea why these "agnostics" on /sci/ are against atheism. Everywhere else in the world, atheists and agnostics are grouped together in the secular/non-theist category. I would much rather ally myself with atheists than retarded theists.

It's as if the "agnostics" on /sci/ are actually butthurt Christians, pretending to be agnostic so atheists will give them more sympathy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:37:17 2011 No.3637590 >>3637583 > I would much rather ally myself with atheists than retarded theists. yabbut being allied against retarded theists does not mean the same as being a retarded atheist

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:37:17 2011 No.3637591

>>3637555

The human brain can construct an infinite number of pictures that we have no way of knowing the ultimate knowledge of but discarding belief in the relevant possibility of this infinity to the point where it becomes a manageable set of finite circumstances is a precondition for health.

The trollish demands of the agnostic, if taken to their more truthful extremes, would be the disablement of the human mind from proceeding as it'd recurse back upon itself to a series of axioms and splits. Of course in relation to the usual demands of agnostics, it involves a privileging of the possibility of a platonic God as hallucinated by the traumascape of the ape nervous system rather than any number of more mundane or more fantastic pictures of reality.

But how could you ask these pretenders to a standard of self-inquiry, to actually exemplify such a thing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:37:17 2011 No.3637593 >>3637567 You're forgetting to list Gnosticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:38:17 2011 No.3637600 >>3637583 >Suddenly a challenger appears. A champion among men. We shall call him... >A-Agnostic, a unbeliever of unbeliefs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:38:17 2011 No.3637602 >>3637583 >It's as if the "agnostics" on /sci/ are actually butthurt Christians, pretending to be agnostic so atheists will give them more sympathy. This.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:39:17 2011 No.3637604 >>3637593 Gnosticism proper is a mystical variant of christianity. In its usage here, it's a claim to knowledge rather than a maybe, which is basically just a belief that lies further along the continuum of certainty.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:41:17 2011 No.3637610 >>3637602 >Its as if, if they arn't with us, they're against us. Gee, and you wonder by agnostics lump atheists with theists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:43:17 2011 No.3637623 >>3637610 >agnostics lump atheists with theists They don't. You're the only one. Go to any philosophy class or debate club and you'll see that agnostics and atheists only argue with theists, and never among themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:43:17 2011 No.3637625 But Guys Hey guys Guys Guys What if Guys Hey guys Guys What if God is maths?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:44:17 2011 No.3637634 >>3637623 You must have never been to /sci/ before.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:44:17 2011 No.3637635

>>3637610

Because self-proclaimed "agnostics" are morons who make a big ado about a specific idealistic picture of reality (as ordered by Logos, God, etc) and its unknowability without realizing the unknowability of AN INFINITY OF OTHER PICTURES and realizing that they are "a-"s of these other pictures.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:45:17 2011 No.3637640 >>3637635 >without [citation needed]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:48:17 2011 No.3637647 >>3637481 Theism = Believing in a God Gnosticism = Knowing something If Atheism means rejecting a God, then Agnosticism means rejecting knowledge.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:48:17 2011 No.3637649

>>3637640

Oh yeah, because if the mental picture was "transdimensional demons raping my asshole" it'd be as equally desirable to be an agnostic and openly mark oneself as such and to defend the limits of human knowledge to have certainty of the existence or non existence of the picture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:50:17 2011 No.3637658 >>3637649 It's always desirable to understand and acknowledge the limits of one's knowledge. To do otherwise is to become dogmatically religious, or atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:51:17 2011 No.3637664 How would you describe these philosophical views supporters in a few words: a) Gnostic theism b) Agnostic theism c) Gnostic atheism d) Agnostic atheism

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:51:17 2011 No.3637668 >>3637658 >dogmatically religious >OR >atheist A step in the right direction.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:54:17 2011 No.3637677

>>3637664

>a) Gnostic theism
I know that this god exists to such a degree that I am willing to live my life on that belief.
>b) Agnostic theism
I don't know if a god exists, but I'm fairly certain about which god it would be if it did, so I'll just follow what that god seems to want just in case.
>c) Gnostic atheism
I believe that there is no god.
>d) Agnostic atheism
I believe that there is no god.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:54:17 2011 No.3637679 >>3637668 atheism is dogmatically religious nice try at rhetoric

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:55:17 2011 No.3637684 >>3637679 Define religion for me quickly, so I can understand what you mean.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:57:17 2011 No.3637688 >>3637677 Well, thanks. Nevertheless, I have meant it less in academic way. Such as "this group contains majority of people. Those people are usually ..."

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:58:17 2011 No.3637690

>>3637658

God, do you realize how obscene you sound to a higher man? After clearly illustrating the posturing of the "agnostic", you still chatter on. Being agnostic is not about "knowing the limits of one's self-knowledge" but blustering about like an idiot trying to trade some degraded social-linguistic currency while not realizing how dumb your explicit claim to the uncertainty of a limited set of idealistic pictures without realizing that the precondition to YOUR FUNCTIONING EXISTENCE IS THE DENIAL AND/OR IGNORANCE OF AN INFINITY OF OTHERS.

Not to mention that most "atheists" are still believers of the values of the the gods they disavow, as if the important thing was the literal existence rather than the values that surrounded the whole psychoscape of veneration for the old idols.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:58:17 2011 No.3637691 >>3637684 I'm using it in the sense it most commonly gets used on this board.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:58:17 2011 No.3637694 >>3637664 This nomenclature may be popular amongst internet retards, but it is a misuse of the words gnostic and agnostic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:59:17 2011 No.3637699 >>3637688 Most people are gnostic theists. Some people are agnostic atheists. A few people are agnostic theists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 12:59:17 2011 No.3637701 >>3637690 Wow. Ok, dude, you win. I can't say nothing with as many words nearly as well as you can.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:00:17 2011 No.3637705 >>3637677 Nice try, but wrong. Gnosticism means that you have personally experienced some god. Like talked to him /her/it. Been filled with the spirit. etc. It is not a belief. Gnosis means "knowledge," and knowledge means been there, done that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:00:17 2011 No.3637708 >>3637699 most atheists are not agnostic about it, they just pretend they are so as to hide their beliefs

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:02:17 2011 No.3637718

>>3637691

So a set of beliefs and practices?

Atheism, a position on a single issue, doesn't fit. There are atheist religions, Confucianism, Buddhism, Secular Humanism, but straight atheism does not count as a religion. Neither does straight theism, though theism is invariably in the context of a religion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:03:17 2011 No.3637721 Until you present evidence for your claim, I don't believe in it. I don't KNOW whether it is true or not, but I don't BELIEVE in it. So I am an agnostic atheist. Agnostic because I don't assert knowledge. Atheist because I don't believe in any God(s).

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:04:17 2011 No.3637724 >>3637694 true for gnostic, which has other meanings but agnostic is used accurately to be agnostic about something = to lack certainty

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:05:17 2011 No.3637731 >>3637708 When it comes to the deist god, they are agnostic. When it comes to the theist god, they are gnostic. But since the general rule is that they do not claim knowledge about any god at all, they are, in general, agnostic.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:05:17 2011 No.3637733

>>3637718
That's quite adorably naive. The msot common meaning of "religion" around here is more like "belief without evidence"

Otherwise, yes. Neither atheism or theism are religions in and of themselves, they are characetristics of worldviews which can be religions but which are not necessarily so.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:05:17 2011 No.3637734 this just proves agnostics are just cowardly atheists trying not to offend anybody

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:05:17 2011 No.3637735 >>3637198 ITT: Atheists defend their belief by stating it is not a belief, that it is true, and they have knowledge of it to base their belief on >ITT: Irrational circular reasoning devoid of useful meaning or universal representation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:07:17 2011 No.3637740 /sci/ is not /rel/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:07:17 2011 No.3637741 >>3637733 Libertarianism and Transhumanism are religions, e.g.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:07:17 2011 No.3637742

>>3637731
They have gnostic-claim-level certainty in a certain set of beliefs about reality. These foundational beliefs are inextricably tied up with the issue of whether or not a god exists. To not claim knowledge about a god does mean they are not claiming knowledge about the divine (ultimate) nature of reality.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:08:17 2011 No.3637744

>>3637724
agnostic is more than lacking certainty. It's acknowledging that you don't have enough info to come down on one side or another. So if you put it together with atheism or theism, you're simultaneously coming down on one side or another, and saying you're not coming down on one side or another.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:11:17 2011 No.3637753

>>3637742
Atheists merely have a belief system that requires them to discount other peoples assertions.

It's nothing special, mostly it's just their desire to prove or disprove all assertions.

Agnostics on the other hand accept fuzzy definitions, and the unknowablity of things like Libertarianism.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:13:17 2011 No.3637758

>>3637744
No, it's the position that you *cannot* have enough info to conclude.

>>3637753
>Atheists merely have a belief system that requires them to discount other peoples assertions.
Hardly unique. And hardly a comprehensive picture of their beliefs.
>Agnostics on the other hand accept fuzzy definitions, and the unknowablity of things like Libertarianism.
Yeahno.

>>	Sat Aug 27 13:17:17 2011 No.3637777 ITT: people get confused and get into arguments over semantics, because they don't know that there are subsets in both atheism and agnosticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:27:17 2011 No.3637832 >>3637758 Just because you're a-comment, doesn't mean you've refuted it or have anyway to disprove it. Thinking you have or you can, is what makes you an atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:30:17 2011 No.3637850 >>3637832 What?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:35:17 2011 No.3637877 File: 295 KB, 1174x420, engineeringsearch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3637850 Just because you're a-What, doesn't mean what was said is conconcievable or understandable given the context of reality. >a-what what?

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:43:17 2011 No.3637925

i hope this'll blow some of your minds.

do you have a belief in a god?
in other words, when you think about the existence of god, do you think "it exists"?
yes?
then you are a theist.
no?
then you are an atheist.

EXCLUDED FUCKING MIDDLE. "agnosticism", as you fuckers seem to think it, is not a middle.

for those that somehow need more clarification, not having a belief in god is not equivalent to having a belief that it doesn't exist. thus "agnosticism", "theism", and "atheism" are not mutually exclusive terms.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:45:17 2011 No.3637943 >>3637925 already shown to be incorrect, see >>3637567

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:45:17 2011 No.3637944 >>3637925 Oh mister black and white. Do you also devotely believe socialism, communism, libertarianism, democracy, are best for humanity?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:47:17 2011 No.3637954 >>3637944 it is black and white. these are well-defined terms. thus excluded middle can be perfectly well applied. and no, i don't, as i haven't researched those in depth.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:49:17 2011 No.3637964 >oh no, my favorite word is being redefined by people using it incorrectly welcome to the world of language, OP

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:49:17 2011 No.3637968 >>3637954 So, you believe you can empirically determine whether Libertarianism is the best form of government given any definition?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:49:17 2011 No.3637969 >>3637943 >Atheism: by my means of investigation there appears to be no evidence for God that's not the definition of atheism. atheism does not require investigation. it's not a positive claim.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:50:17 2011 No.3637975 >>3637969 ok, by means of assessment then.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:54:17 2011 No.3638002

>>3637968
"given any definition"? ANY definition? if i'm given a definition of "cookies", no, i don't think i can "empirically determine" that. (you misused the word "empirically" btw. the reasoning i employed was deductive. empirical is inductive.) if i'm given a definition of "faggot", i don't think i could either.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:55:17 2011 No.3638011 >>3637975 nope, still a positive claim, sorry. further still, i think the words "assessment" and "investigation" are equivalent in this context.

>>	tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc Sat Aug 27 13:56:17 2011 No.3638019 >>3637207 >FSM and invisible pink unicorn ... dont exist Well someone sure is full of themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 13:56:17 2011 No.3638021 >>3638011 That's the point. Atheists asses that there is no evidence for god by whatever their means of assessment are.

>>	tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc Sat Aug 27 13:57:17 2011 No.3638023 >>3637969 It is on the internet.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:03:17 2011 No.3638053

>>3638021
well, if that's the point, then see >>3637969. i refuted you there. atheists do not "assess". atheists to not "investigate". the only thing atheists do, the one and only thing, is not believe in a god. this has been the definition for as long as the word "atheism" has existed. you're not doing any good trying to change semantics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:04:17 2011 No.3638065 >>3638053 atheists do not "investigate".*

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:05:17 2011 No.3638066

>>3638053
>the only thing atheists do, the one and only thing, is not believe in a god.

And how do they "decide" if they believe in a god or not?
answer: they assess the evidence according to the standards they hold for determining reality.

Stop being so willfully stupid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:07:17 2011 No.3638077 >>3638066 Which is why you cannot accuse another person of believe in God with no evidence. Perhaps their standard of evidence is different from yours.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:13:17 2011 No.3638130

>>3638066
my name's michael.

hey michael, do you believe in a god?
no.
why not?
well, i just don't believe.
well, comon michael, you can't just "not believe". there has to be some reason.
nope, just don't believe. i don't have any reason to. i don't think i need any reason to.

that simple.

when writing the above, a question stood out: "how does michael know if he has a belief or not, even if a believe, or lack thereof, is without reason?" that seems to be a entirely different question, though i'm still unsure if that's what you were getting at.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:14:17 2011 No.3638139 >>3638077 Precisely.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:16:17 2011 No.3638150 >>3638130 assessments of reality are rarely consciously willed. most occur without intention.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:16:17 2011 No.3638155

>>3638130
>my name's michael.
>
>hey michael, do you believe in Libertarianism?
>no.
>why not?
>well, i just don't believe.
>well, comon michael, you can't just "not believe". there has to be some reason.
>nope, just don't believe. i don't have any reason to. i don't think i need any reason to.

Sure is durp in here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:17:17 2011 No.3638157 >>3638150 so what?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:18:17 2011 No.3638165 >>3638157 so atheism is not just an empty space, lacking belief., it's an emergent conclusion from previously held beliefs about reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:19:17 2011 No.3638168 >>3638155 analogies prove nothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:21:17 2011 No.3638174 >>3638139 Yes. I may find the evidence that God exists satisfactory, but you do not because your standard of evidence is different from mine.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:21:17 2011 No.3638175 >>3638165 no, you said "rarely". and "most". stop your weasel words and grow some balls.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:24:17 2011 No.3638189 >>3638175 If a phenomenon isn't universally one thing or another, "rarely" and "most" are not weasel words. Please, please try not to be such an idiot.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:31:17 2011 No.3638218

>>3638165
you're probably right. i haven't used the term "weasel word" since sophomore year in high school, and i don't know if i used the term correctly. i had to look it up prior to posting that, and used it pretty loosely. (irony?) clarification:

no, you said "rarely". and "most". your argument necessitates "none" and "all", respectively.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:33:17 2011 No.3638224 File: 85 KB, 500x517, 158e62efed3441b57cad0b7a2e9662995[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ill just leave this here

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:34:17 2011 No.3638226 >>3638168 So when being Atheist is like being Libertarian, theres no difference?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:34:17 2011 No.3638231 >>3638224 You know atheistfags have lost the argument when they start using shitty /b/ reaction images.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:35:17 2011 No.3638234 >>3638218 No, it doesn't. FFS, are you sure sophomore year wasn't last term?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:36:17 2011 No.3638239 >>3638231 umad bro?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:39:17 2011 No.3638251 >>3638226 uhh, yes, you're right. when we define "libertarian" to mean "someone who lacks a belief a god", there is no difference. i give you that. that's the case when being an atheist is like being a libertarian.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:40:17 2011 No.3638261 >>3638239 You also know someone has lost the argument when they say "U mad?"

>>	sage sage Sat Aug 27 14:45:17 2011 No.3638272 Since when do shittyfaggots have a right to redefine /sci/? From the description: A board about math and science. And making your shitty little threads about religion doesn't change the fact.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:45:17 2011 No.3638275

>>3638251
So you're going to completely ignore reality and decide that god is a tangible thing whose existence you can deny like the orange you ate last night that no longer exists?

Alright, sounds like you got a complete rational experience of reality that doesn't completely contradict the rest of your reality.

>ITT: cognitive dissonance unmatchable.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:45:17 2011 No.3638276

>>3638234
it was two terms ago.

>so atheism is not just an empty space, lacking belief., it's an emergent conclusion from previously held beliefs about reality.

if the poster admits that there are rare cases when this is not true, then that leaves the door open for there being cases wherein this is not true. he then went on to say that it's true in all cases. it's true for ALL atheists. ALL the time.... despite the fact that i originally said it's only "most" of the time.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:49:17 2011 No.3638287 Language evolves. Words will be redefined if it suits the population.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:49:17 2011 No.3638288

>>3638275

uhh. that's completely beside the point. all i said was "analogies prove nothing". an appropriate response to that would be disprove my statement, or at least respond to my statement, of "analogies prove nothing".

>like oranges
>another analogy

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:51:17 2011 No.3638291 >>3638288 also, another appropriate response would be to disprove my self-dialogue here >>3638130 without resorting to an analogy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:52:17 2011 No.3638295 >>3638287 so that's what we're discussing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:55:17 2011 No.3638301 >>3638291 This reasoning is like stupidity. >It is of itself, an axiom.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:59:17 2011 No.3638309 >>3638301 being so elliptical only leaves me confused as to wtf you're talking about. communicate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 14:59:17 2011 No.3638310 >>3638291 All abstract objects are open to analogy. You deny your entire existence if you deny analogies.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:02:17 2011 No.3638314 >>3638309 This thread is retarded, I have successfully won my case for agnosticism.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:15:17 2011 No.3638355
File: 45 KB, 724x621, temp.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3637198
> Since when do shitty atheists have a right to redefine agnosticism?
They're not.

> From the dictionary:
dot com

> AGNOSTIC
> a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Sounds good, we'll use that.

> And spamming your desperate little MSPaint propaganda doesn't cut it for an argument against a long-standing definition.
Fortunately we're not out to disprove the definition, just show that YOU'RE a retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:20:17 2011 No.3638369 G = gangsta Agnostic = A gangsta nostic

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:20:17 2011 No.3638370

>>3637664

>Gnostic Theist
I know god exists, 100%
>Agnostic Thiest
I don't know 100% god exists, but choose to believe in one
>Agnostic Atheist
I don't know 100% god doesn't exist, but I choose not to believe in one (usually based on lack of any evidence of the existence of god)
>Gnostic Atheist
I know god doesn't exist, 100%

All of you "agnostics" seem to think being an Agnostic Atheist implies just as much faith as being a Theist. Why, though, would you claim the null hypothesis takes faith?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:23:17 2011 No.3638384 >>3638370 No, we recognize psychologically theres a difference between: >Believing in God >Believing there is no God >And not giving a fuck either way. It's pretty simple.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:25:17 2011 No.3638397 >>3638384 >believing there is no god I think you meant to say, "Lacking belief in a god."

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:27:17 2011 No.3638410

Doesn't Gnostic theism conflict with itself? Since theism means belief (of a higher being), and belief requires lack of certainty it is impossible to believe that there is a higher being and "know" that it does, right?

You're welcome to prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:28:17 2011 No.3638414 >>3638397 No, I mean stfu with semantics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:29:17 2011 No.3638421 >>3638410 For a Gnostic Theist it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. They assert that they know, as a fact, that god exists. It's not a matter of "I believe god exists", it's a matter of, "I know god exists."

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:31:17 2011 No.3638434 >>3638414 That's hardly semantics. The sentences "I believe there is no god", and "I lack belief in a god" assert incredibly different things. The former implies a claim, the latter implies that it is the null hypothesis (which it is).

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:34:17 2011 No.3638447

>>3638434

To elaborate on my point...

If you told me one day that you were harboring an invisible pink unicorn in your garage, and then didn't provide any evidence for your claim, it wouldn't be a matter of faith for me to disagree with you. I'm not saying "I have faith that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in your garage," I'm saying, "I assert the null hypothesis, that your claim is not valid until proven positive." Think "innocent until proven guilty."

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:35:17 2011 No.3638448

>>3638434
It is so.

For the sentence to exist "Lacking belief" You have to assert what that belief is.

Therefore, there is no difference in lacking or disbelieving.

They're beliefs, as in thoughts, as in assertion or denials of something.

If you want to lack a position, then you're agnostic.

Otherwise, stfu.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:35:17 2011 No.3638449

>>3638410
> Doesn't Gnostic theism conflict with itself? Since theism means belief (of a higher being), and belief requires lack of certainty it is impossible to believe that there is a higher being and "know" that it does, right?
Since when does being contradictory stop theists from doing anything?

> You're welcome to prove me wrong.
"Hi, I'm Dr. Kent Hovind and I taught high school science for 15 years..."

>>	Ham !!jDj71SQtPC1 Sat Aug 27 15:38:17 2011 No.3638456 /sci/ is like /b/'s older autistic brother. Also, internet atheists EVERYWHERE

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:40:17 2011 No.3638468

>>3638448

Again, just think "innocent until proven guilty," except use the words, "false until proven postive."

A. In court, one makes the claim that a defendent is guilty
B. In religion, one makes the claim that god exists

A. The states official stance is "This defendant is innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt." (The null hypothesis)
B. In this case, we say, "Your argument holds no merit until you can prove it in the positive." (the null hypothesis)

Lacking belief in a god is not making any claim, it's simply the automatic position to take until proof of god is provided.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:52:17 2011 No.3638529 >>3638448 [ ] Not told [ ] Told [x] No Country for Told Men

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:56:17 2011 No.3638541 >>3638468 You might as well call yourself A- as in, I lack everything I've never been explicitly informed about, as such, it is a state of life. >aunicorn >aflyingspeghettimonster >a... >>3637877 >>3637832

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 15:59:17 2011 No.3638557 >>3638468 So if someone makes a mathematical conjecture, and someone else disproves that conjecture. The disproof of the conjecture isn't a belief? I find this hard to..what..what..whats that word?

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:00:17 2011 No.3638559

>>3638468
are you trolling?

the correct thing to do would be not to say that god doesn't exist, but that it is unknown whether he exists or not.

That's like someone saying to you there's an apple behind you and you saying that there is no apple until it is proven to you that there is. The truth of the matter is it is unknown whether the apple is behind you or not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:02:17 2011 No.3638569 >>3638559 Atheists just want tto believe that anyone not asserting the positive belief are implicitly asserting the negative belief. Essentially, it's their way to frame the debate, the same way republicans call rich people 'job producers'.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:04:17 2011 No.3638575 >>3638559 >implying I'm not aunicorn and aFSM >>3638541 If he could grab me the apple and show it to me I would believe him.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:06:17 2011 No.3638583

>>3638559

Except I'm not saying god doesn't exist. I'm saying we don't know for sure if god exists or not, but since the claim that god exists is being made without any evidence, I lack belief in a god. Also, given the fact that science has continually come up with refutations of many claims of many major religions, it should be just a matter of time until god is no longer needed. That still leaves a deist god, but then, what does that matter anyway?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:06:17 2011 No.3638585 such utter faggotry from both camps makes me ashamed of not believing in a personal god.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:08:17 2011 No.3638588

>>3638575
But can you assert that you are a- ?

Look at it this way, you're in buffet line of various abstractions: invisible unicorns, libertarianism, aether, string theory, ghosts. And you go along the buffet, and based on your examination, you're claiming you have to either a- these things or not, and you can't have a position of not caring/knowing/understanding/defining of any of them?

It is rudely absurd to be...be...be... everything in this world, because the levels and numbers of abstractions make it impossible.

Hence, agnosticism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:08:17 2011 No.3638592 >>3638575 But your default position appears to be disbelieving. Which is fine, but you should realize that it is incoherent with what we understand of the mind.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:10:17 2011 No.3638601 >>3638583 It is made with evidence. Evidence you are a- at. Do you not see this yet?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:14:17 2011 No.3638603 >>3638588 So you are implying that even if the god in question existed, it couldn't be proven or disproven?

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:16:17 2011 No.3638617

>>3638601

I would love to see that evidence. If it is indeed reliable, peer review able, and in all ways pointing to the existence of a god, I would become a theist.

>>3638588
Are you saying that even if the god in question existed, it would be impossible to prove/disprove its existence?

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:20:17 2011 No.3638636

GNOSTIC THEIST - knows there is a god
AGNOSTIC THEIST - believes there is a god, but knows that the existence of a god cannot be proven either way
AGNOSTIC ATHEIST - believes there is no god, but knows that the existence of a god cannot be proven either way
GNOSTIC ATHEIST - knows there is no god

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:27:17 2011 No.3638655 >>3638603 It, like everything, is a level of confidence. Atheism = no confidence Theism = complete confidence Agnosticism = some-much confidence

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 16:28:17 2011 No.3638660 >>3638617 Holy christ you completely miss the point. Being Atheist isn't just "lacking belief in god" it is disbelieving any evidence that has been presented for his existence.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:15:17 2011 No.3638897

>>3638660

Or finding the evidence lacking, the sources incredible, the arguments asinine.

If anybody believes in god on NO evidence, I would question their sanity. If they believe in god on evidence that I (and lets be frank here, most other religious people) find unconvincing, then I would simply question their epistemology and gullibility.

But that is only gods for which some evidence has been presented. For the deists god, it is merely unfounded.

Also this whole thread: saying you don't know if there is a god or not doesn't mean you're not certain THIS or THAT god is a fiction; and saying you know THIS or THAT god is a fiction doesn't mean you're certain there could be no god.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:18:17 2011 No.3638906 >>3638636 This. If people understood this, there would be a lot less confusion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:18:17 2011 No.3638912 >>3638897 Sure god is one one end, but you're arguing against a largely ill defined dreck of abstractions. See a problem with that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:21:17 2011 No.3638933 >>3638906 You mean if people understood and accepted a bullshit axiom they'd have to shut up? >circular logic: The Atheist Dream.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:21:17 2011 No.3638935 >>3638912 Sorry, I don't get your point. Could you rephrase that for clarity?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:23:17 2011 No.3638949 >>3638933 Could you actually tell me why it's wrong instead of being a dick?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:23:17 2011 No.3638952 >>3638636 The problem with this is that everyone is talking about this undefined concept of 'god', which means different things to different people. You'll find positions become a lot more crisp and understandable when you define it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:25:17 2011 No.3638966 >>3638949 Not really. Being a Dick is all I got >I'm atheist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:25:17 2011 No.3638969 >>3638952 Yep. Some people define god as 'love', or 'everything'. And I agree, love exists, everything exists. If it has no additional properties, some degree of agency that can be interrogated in some way, then why use such a needlessly loaded term?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:26:17 2011 No.3638972 >>3638966 At least you're honest.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:32:38 2011 No.3639010 [DELETED]

>>3637391

Agnostic here. Yes this comic so much truth.
Again this is form personal events.

Hated atheist ever since, I saw this fat fucking neck beard always going on about how Christianity / religion blah blah.

I just wanted to tell him to SHUT THE FUCK UP we get it nigga you hate religion get over it bro.

MFW I see these fag semesters later he is getting fatter + ugly as neckbeard loser.

God damn right I feel superior to atheist.

Also usually athiest who are always so god damn angry trying to insult Agnostic people by making these such topics.

Only feeds my superiority i have over these atheist neckbeard losers.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 17:58:17 2011 No.3639136
File: 271 KB, 800x334, 1302825901136.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3637387
That's so true. The only reason people go as far as to say that they are agnostic is because:
A. They reserve a part of their outlook on reality to faith.
or
B. They are polemicists quite content on splitting hairs for the purposes of distinguishing themselves.

Truth is when you pull out the dictionary and get technical about atheism or agnosticism you open up a real can of worms. The argument is that everyone is an agnostic of everything they haven't observed either directly or indirectly. Technically speaking you are an agnostic to weather or not the sun will come up tomorrow, you haven't seen the future. How can you KNOW it? Well you have a reasonable cause to believe it, so you don't actively think about out it. There is no reason to believe in God, or unicorns, there is also no reason to state you are an agnostic about these fictions either.

Stop being incredibly redundant by calling yourself agnostic as if your cryptic mannerisms are a vessel for your attempt to be an intellectually industrious pariah. We're on to you faggots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 18:03:17 2011 No.3639159 Sure is asspained atheist in here. Umad agnosticism is more rational?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 18:16:17 2011 No.3639233 >>3639159 Not more rational: highly rhetorical and unproductively semantic. Faggot.

Anonymous Sat Aug 27 18:34:17 2011 No.3639354

I love how there are so many people who identify as "agnostics" who think they understand what people who identify as atheists actually believe.

Protip: atheists, generally, do not assert that gods do not exist. They just lack a belief.

Atheism is like negative space: It's not actually a thing, and is defined by being "not X."

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 18:42:17 2011 No.3639394 File: 128 KB, 656x1613, 1285163356594.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3639159

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 27 19:05:17 2011 No.3639538 There are agnostic-atheists and agnostic-theists. There. /thread

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 ]