/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3933350]

Because some of us are not so foolish to think we can know if any gods exist. I very firmly believe there's no way to prove or disprove a Supreme Being and so fighting over it is silly.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933359]

believing in one is also silly

[Anonymous No.3933360]

>>3933359
But so is not believing.

[No.3933362]

>>3933350
>know

Way to to completely miss the point. The issue is belief. not knowledge.

[No.3933365]

>>3933360
Biggest trolliest response evar

[Anonymous No.3933366]

There is no way to prove or disprove but you can give a probability to God existing. Something like very close to zero.

[Anonymous No.3933367]

>/sci/ - Religion & Philosophy

[No.3933375]

LOL EK GOT BANNED!!! XD

[Anonymous No.3933380]

>>3933366
What makes you think there's no probability of any gods existing? I'd say it's an even 50/50 chance.

[Anonymous No.3933385]

>>3933380
That is true, but I'd say some gods like the Christian one are less likely than others.

[No.3933389]

>>3933380
For an unknowable god, yes. but with more specificity, the more chance we have of quantifying the probability.

[Anonymous No.3933392]

>>3933385
Translation: The gods that are unlikely to exist are the ones I don't like and which annoy me

I'm not stupid.

[Anonymous No.3933399]

>>3933385
How so?

[No.3933405]

>>3933392
No it's because the christian god is claimed to be known. and knowable. nothing about god can be known.

[Anonymous No.3933407]

>>3933399
It's not like the Christian or any other god couldn't exist, it's just that they're very unlikely to exist as they are described by their religions.

[Anonymous No.3933417]

>>3933407
Explain.

[No.3933422]

>>3933417
The more facts you come up with describing god's nature, the less likely he becomes

[Anonymous No.3933425]

>>3933422
Kind of fallacious because people tend to have very different ideas of God's nature. Not everyone thinks he's omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent all at once (which would see logically impossible)

[No.3933430]

>>3933425
it's a fallacy if you don't know what a fallacy is and what you said didn't refute what I said.

[Anonymous No.3933438]

The point being that certain ideas of God's nature can be ruled out, namely the three qualities mentioned in >>3933425

[Anonymous No.3933440]

>>3933438
Logically impossible doesn't mean it can be ruled out.

[No.3933442]

>>3933440
I means we can seize thinking about them since we aren't even equipped to understand them.

[Anonymous No.3933453]

>>3933442
So basically you're saying "God probably exists, but we can't understand him, so there's no point to trying."

Ok, fair enough. Not sure if that counts as theism or agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.3933457]

i believe there is a teapot orbiting between here and mars, you can't prove me wrong so you should respect its plausability.

no that is not how it works, if anybody suggests this for any topic other than religion it is laughed at

[No.3933460]

>>3933453
>God probably exists
I didn't say this. it would depend on which conception of god we're talking about
>we can't understand him
Again depends on which kind of god we're referring to
> there's no point to trying
yes this is true. You can't know god and even if you did it would be indistinguishable a random human asserting that he knows god. There would be no way to prove that he actually knows god.
Instead of trying to know god we should strive to understand what is good.

[Anonymous No.3933468]

>>3933460
I think that's where atheists fail. They become more interested in futile attempts to understand God's nature rather than the teachings of a religion.

[Anonymous No.3933470]

>>3933457
No agnosticism says you're a moron for discussing it at all.

Theism: Orbiting teapots absolutely exist.
Atheism: ORBITING TEAPOTS ARE LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST.

Agnostic: Ok, it's theoretically possible, however improbable, but it's not worth discussing.

[No.3933476]

>>3933468
>They become more interested in futile attempts to understand God's nature

atheists are not theologians so no, they are not at all interested in this.

>the teachings of a religion

atheists are very much concerned with this. their entire argument can almost be summed as refuting the moral authority and lessons from religions.

[Anonymous No.3933477]

>>3933470
No, that's agnostic atheism. Saying "IT DEFINITELY DOESN'T EXIST." is gnostic atheism.

[Anonymous No.3933481]

>>3933470
you do realise that very few atheists are like that, most are agnostic atheists meaning that they agree you can't technically disprove god but that they personally don't beleive in one, mfw this is even 'militant atheist' richard dawkins view

[Anonymous No.3933484]

Oh sorry OP, didn't know you were the supreme advisor of the human race.

[Anonymous No.3933485]

>>3933477
True. The idea is that agnostic stays away from absolute claims.

Absolute claims are fantasy. How a science minded individual can make absolute claims (as in, not agnosticism) is silly.

[Anonymous No.3933487]

>>3933476
>atheists are not theologians so no, they are not at all interested in this.
Oh, but they are. Many will tell you point blank that "I do not believe in or God can't exist because of X and Y."
>atheists are very much concerned with this. their entire argument can almost be summed as refuting the moral authority and lessons from religions.
Because they want to be able to have random sex and kill people with no consequences.

[Anonymous No.3933488]

>>3933470

Umm, we're talking about the alpha and omega here. Not teapots, you might wanna head over to /b/

[Anonymous No.3933489]

>>3933481
Yes, *I* realize.

Of course I was discussing agnostic vs non-agnostic, not the misperceptions of the general public.

[Anonymous No.3933490]

Obligatory grain of reason.
Can this false dichotomy shit end?
Please?
Privative alpha can mean both absence or NEGATION.

[Anonymous No.3933491]

>>3933488
i'm sorry i asumed you would understand the reference

[No.3933493]

>>3933487
>Oh, but they are. Many will tell you point blank that "I do not believe in or God can't exist because of X and Y."

that's not theology. And it's not 'knowing god'. it's just refuting claims of god.

>Because they want to be able to have random sex and kill people with no consequences.


wat? no. most of the atheists critique of religion is centred on explaining why religion should not be a reason to kill

[Anonymous No.3933496]

>>3933489

Why does everyone on this board act like a narcissistic faggot?

[Anonymous No.3933497]

>>3933490
i was in the thread that the guy made that pic, if you look at example a for the deffinition that fits nicely with agnostic atheism, the guy who made it admitted that he didn't actually read the pic just assumed what it said matched what he meant

[Anonymous No.3933498]

>>3933496
Because some cunt starts it by throwing insults.

[No.3933499]

>>3933490
wtf. the edit doesn't even refute the original writing.

you posted that black picture on its own a while back and it contributed nothing to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.3933500]

>>3933493
>that's not theology. And it's not 'knowing god'. it's just refuting claims of god.
Theology=the study of God and religion.
>wat? no. most of the atheists critique of religion is centred on explaining why religion should not be a reason to kill
And? There are also pacifist religions as well.

[Anonymous No.3933502]

atheism: the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
One can reject a belief without claiming it to be absolutely impossible.
I reject the belief there was a conspiracy behind 9/11, but I cannot be absolutely certain.

[Anonymous No.3933506]

>>3933498
didn't mean to insult, just chill
remember its 4chan still

[No.3933508]

>>3933500
>Theology=the study of God and religion.


yes that is the definition

>There are also pacifist religions as well.

We know this. why do you feel the need to say it?
Belief in god is not required to not hurt people.

[Anonymous No.3933515]

>>3933500
>Theology=the study of God and religion.
No. Theology assumes you believe God exists. Since atheists do not assume God exists, discussion of God is not theology from their perspective.
>And? There are also pacifist religions as well.
Which are irrelevant since the major faiths are not pacifistic.

[Anonymous No.3933521]

I believe there is no God and I will never believe otherwise, because:

I believe there is no God, because I have seen no empirical proofs of his existence. If those who claim he exists can show me actual empirical proofs, I will not believe but know that he exists.

inb4
>HUUURRRR ATHEISTS CLOSE THEIR EYES ON ALL THE PROOFS OF GOD AROUND US SUCH AS THE MIRACLE OF BIRTH

Because just no, history has proven that it's the other way round. God used to be a man in the sky but science has disproven that, along with many other claims of religions. What's God now? Some sort of absolutely abstract uncomprehensible piece of shit alien being made of energy and fuck.

[Anonymous No.3933532]

>>3933502

Well make up your mind, you might as well be a braindead clueless it makes no difference to your stance.

[Anonymous No.3933534]

>>3933499
Uh, yes, it does.
Atheism is not "lack of belief".
It is DENIAL of a belief, which is itself a belief.
Check a dictionary.

[Anonymous No.3933537]

>>3933521

You sound like a 14 year old boy who wants everything handed to him.

[Anonymous No.3933538]

>>3933532
troll, right?
...right?

[No.3933539]

>>3933532
his mind is made. it will never be definitively made. You should also leave room for future consideration

[No.3933541]

>>3933534
I did. it says disbelief in the existence of gods.

denial of a belief is the lack of that belief.

[Anonymous No.3933544]

>>3933539

He sounds as aimless as the most part of the population. Too afraid to make any real choices and complacently waddles through the day.

[No.3933551]

>>3933544
So apparently you need to believe in god to be assertive in day to day life. What bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3933557]

I believe in magic.

[Anonymous No.3933558]

>>3933442
Wow, you give up easy.

[Anonymous No.3933564]

>>3933537
I'm really sorry for asking for proof and not believing every kind of crap people tell me to believe.

How about you go fuck yourself out of the scientific community?

[Anonymous No.3933569]

>>3933541
>denial of a belief is the lack of that belief.

You can lack a belief by simply not being aware of it.

[No.3933571]

>>3933558
If you're going to assert god's existence by denying basic logic then there is no discussion to be had. You might as well have said. God is magic. therefore god exists.

[Anonymous No.3933575]

>>3933571
Only if you assume that the way you think is the only way you can ever think. You might as well have not even studied math beyond basic algebra or anything unintuitive anywhere ever.

IE, you gave up.

[No.3933579]

>>3933569
true. that would still make you atheist since atheism is disbelief, unbelief. the lack of belief. there are many more dictionaries and sources which use this definition than any that use the 'atheism=denial' version.

[Anonymous No.3933581]

Militantly Ignorant

Something to be proud of, OP

[Anonymous No.3933582]

>>3933571
If God really is almighty he can be omnipotent then logic does not apply to him. Means, he can create a wall that is too heavy for him to move and then move it.

In that sense, yes God's magic.

[No.3933583]

>>3933575
>IE, you gave up.

No I said there is no discussion to be had AT PRESENT

[Anonymous No.3933587]

>>3933582
But then if God doesn't follow the laws of physics, we can't test him and there's no reason to even argue about his nature.

If you can't test it, it may as well not exist.

[Anonymous No.3933588]

>>3933582
Wanted to replace almight by omnipotent but forgot to delete the almighty part.

[No.3933589]

>>3933582
>In that sense, yes God's magic.

Okay there's no arguing with you. I'm fine with this conception of god. the trouble comes when you try to make further inferences. Go try it.

[Anonymous No.3933594]

>>3933583
No, you didn't. (>>3933571)
>> then there is no discussion to be had.

[Anonymous No.3933597]

>>3933582
I believe in Anti-God.

Anti-God's existence sole condition is that God does not exist.

QED, God does not exist.

[Anonymous No.3933600]

>>3933587

The laws of nature are something that can change by God's will, if he existed.

[Anonymous No.3933601]

>>3933587
>If you can't test it, it may as well not exist.

That's an absurdly self-limiting belief.

[Anonymous No.3933607]

>>3933589
I am not the same guy who argued with you further way up. Actually I am agreeing with you.

God's magic, nothing else. Religious people talking about God are like a bunch of four year old kids talking about Santa.

There is nothing behind it except a load of false happiness and hope.

[No.3933608]

>>3933594
' then there is no discussion to be had' implies i am talking about the present since I used the word 'is' over 'was' or 'will be'. why the fuck would I be talking about the future??

[Anonymous No.3933609]

>>3933541
No, it is not.
Denial, to deny:
refusal to admit the truth or realit;y assertion that an allegation is false .

I really wish you guys would actually check the meaning of the words you use.
I'm not even kidding, we had to do as part of our courses for the 3rd year of highschool.

[No.3933613]

>>3933609
atheism is disbelief, unbelief. the lack of belief. there are many more dictionaries and sources which use this definition than any that use the 'atheism=denial' version.

[Anonymous No.3933615]

>>3933601
Empirical testing is all we have. If it can't be tested that way, it may as well not exist.

[Anonymous No.3933616]

>>3933608
"to be" implies future tense.

[Anonymous No.3933619]

what a terrible thread

[Anonymous No.3933620]

The word god has so many meanings that equating it to santa is rather retarded.
If by God we mean a creator, I guess the best points in favour of its existence would be the ones made by the simulation argument.

Note: I'm an atheist (or agnostic, I don't wanna sink into this semantic faggottry).

[No.3933623]

>>3933616
Not combined with the present tense.

[Anonymous No.3933627]

>>3933615
It may be all *you* have. But again, that's an absurdly self-limiting belief. Not that you believe it, most likely. In normal life interactions, most people improvise their behavior without needing an empirically tested set of propositions and proofs.

[Anonymous No.3933628]

>>3933601

Scientist: Higgs Bozon particle really exists!!
Me: Prove it.
Scientist: sadface.png builds multi-billion science facility to look for proofs.

Religious nutjob: God really exists!!!
Me. Prove it.
Religious nutjob: HUURRRRRRRRRRRRR YOU CANNOT PROVE HE DOES NOT EXIST SO HE EXISTS, YOU FOOLISH IDIOT. PREPARE FOR HELL, WHEN GOD SMITES ALL THE NON-BELIEVERS AND SINNERS!
That self-limiting belief is the standart of science.

[Anonymous No.3933633]

>>3933623
Right, combined with the present tense it implies generality: that no discussion could ever be had.

[Anonymous No.3933636]

>>3933613
1) disbelief: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue
2)Unbelief:incredulity or skepticism especially in matters of religious faith

This doesn't sound as "lack of belief" to me.
Please, quote the sources you mentioned.

[Anonymous No.3933637]

>>3933628
>That self-limiting belief is the standart of science.

Which does not apply well to divinity. So if science is all you have in your mental capabilities, then you're unreasonable limited.

[Anonymous No.3933647]

>>3933637
It's the only method proven to work.

[Anonymous No.3933649]

>>3933637
>divinity

>implying there is anything else in anybody's mental capability other than science/math that can actually prove things

[Anonymous No.3933658]

>>3933636
[proseguo]
Skepticism: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

1) Incredulity: the quality or state of being incredulous : disbelief.
2) Incredulous: unwilling to admit or accept what is offered as true.

...still waiting for these phantomatic sources, by the way.

[No.3933666]

>>3933633
well ive clarified the issue so why are you still arguing.

[No.3933675]

>>3933658
well right off the bat merriam webster offers two definitions.
1: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
neither are wrong and for you to insist one of them is more wrong than the other is stupid.

You might as well be telling me homonyms only have 1 meaning.

[Anonymous No.3933678]

>>3933658
Give up.

Americans are the worst english speakers EVER.
I was part of a cultural exchange program and it was fucking excruciating to study with most of them - I was the one helping them spell their own language. Asking them to understand is asking them too much.

This is what you get when over 50% of your budget goes into bombing the shit out of countries you can't find on a goddam map.

[Anonymous No.3933688]

>>3933675
GODDAMMIT, disbelief: mental rejection of something as untrue.

It does not mean lack of belief. Do the extra mile an check the words you don't understand in a definition.

[No.3933691]

>>3933688
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real
a lack of faith in something

[Anonymous No.3933694]

It's silly to believe in something just because it's unknowable.

This is why agnostics are stupid.

[Anonymous No.3933698]

>>3933691
Wow.
two definition out of what, twenty?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JimWae/Disbelief

>>here are many more dictionaries and sources which use this definition than any that use the 'atheism=denial' version.
Was that you?
If so please, do a quick counting.
I'll be waiting.

[Anonymous No.3933701]

>>3933694
...you are a troll, right?

Agnostics don't believe.

[Anonymous No.3933703]

>>3933701
If they don't believe, then they are athiests.

[Anonymous No.3933707]

>>3933703
3/10

[Anonymous No.3933710]

>>3933707
To be logically consistent, an agnostic would have to hold every unknowable possibility that anyone could ever conceive of and all others to have equal probability.

[No.3933711]

>>3933698
That's a handy little list you've got there. Is it yours?
Quite a few more than two on that list draws parallels between disbelief as lack of belief. Did you actually read them?
And where they don't draw those parallels, they usually have an example that shows it isn't a definition concerning faith or religious faith.

[Anonymous No.3933712]

How many times does this have to be explained. Everyone is either atheist or theist. You have to believe one way or the other. However, know one actually knows for sure, and the people who are intelligent to know this are agnostics, although they are still atheists or theists. I strongly believe that there is no god, yet I am aware that I don't know for sure, so I am an agnostic atheist. You can't just be a pure agnostic (unless you are using it to avoid a religious argument, which is smart).

[Anonymous No.3933713]

>>3933703
Except for the fact that atheists belief in the non-existence of gods

[Anonymous No.3933719]

>>3933350

It is possible. Simple.

God interacting with someone makes that person instantly know for sure there's a god.

[Anonymous No.3933722]

>>3933713
>>3933713
No they don't. I have been an atheist all my life. The question of divinity is a false premise. I don't need to make any judgment to not believe in a god. I just need to have never been presented with evidence.

[Anonymous No.3933728]

>>3933719
I could say I've had experiences that would constitute proof of God's existence, but they cannot be proven objectively.

[Anonymous No.3933731]

>>3933711
>>3933712
>>3933713
...how about you all check a fucking dictionary?
For a change?
The most common usage is "rejection of belief in any god".
I'll consent that sometime it is used in the "nonbelief" way but this shit is laughable - it's almost as if atheists are trying to recruit people the same way christian preachers use - by telling them that if they are not under god they are under the devil.

I mean, christ, I understand you guys prefer a definition to the other, but be honest with yourself, 90% of the population prefers and understands the other.

Just grow the fuck up. Nobody is gonna think you are smart because you bitch about semantic - well, certainly nobody with easy access to a dictionary.

[Anonymous No.3933729]

a-theism ---> without- theism

[Anonymous No.3933738]

>>3933731
The majority of us resent the fact that we are expected to define ourselves based on a lack of belief in superstition.

There is no functional difference between not believing in a god and disbelieving.

[Anonymous No.3933739]

>>3933728

Sure, but that doesn't matter for OP's statement to be wrong. That person knows for sure. That's where OP fails.

[Anonymous No.3933742]

>>3933731

Oh boy are you going to look stupid when you look up "atheism" in a dictionary.

[No.3933743]

>>3933731
Atheism IS rejection of belief, yes, but that is different from atheism as rejection of the possibility of god.

Either way, by not holding the belief (by default or after much consideration), you are rejecting the belief. This says nothing about whether you reject probabilities of god

[Anonymous No.3933749]

What are people who believe in a God? Theists.

If you remove all the theists, all you have left are people.

[No.3933751]

>>3933731
Do you believe in god?

[No.3933756]

>>3933731
>bitching about semantic
you're the one who's perpetuating the semantic argument her

[Anonymous No.3933760]

I'm a person.

[Anonymous No.3933761]

>>3933729

A-theism
a = negation or absence

[No.3933765]

>>3933731
the only way you can hold non-belief and not call it atheism (the rejection of belief) is if you've never heard any conception of god (ie you're a newborn baby). As soon as you hear at least one conception of god, you either believe it or you don't believe it. By believing it, you are a theist, by not believing it (rejecting it) you are an atheist.
I assume you are not a newborn baby so you are atheist. (if you are a baby, then congrats on your surprising grasp of language)

[Anonymous No.3933772]

>>3933742
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief:
the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Disbelieving
to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb
to withhold or reject belief

Please, tell me you are a troll.
I'm begging you.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933779]

you fuckers still arguing over this??
someones getting trolled, but i'm not sure who.

[Anonymous No.3933780]

>>3933772
Sorry, I'm just a person.

[Anonymous No.3933784]

>>3933765
disbelief =/= lack of belief.

Look, tell you what, organize a petition to change every dictionary in the world.

[No.3933789]

>>3933772
You completely ignore all those that offer a slightly different definition than the one you require. An intelligent man takes all definitions together in order to hold a more nuanced appreciation of language.

[No.3933793]

>>3933784
>disbelief =/= lack of belief.

not true for all dictionaries or understanding of the term.

[Anonymous No.3933798]

>>3933789
Your're are a grammar nazi.

[Anonymous No.3933801]

> In Western culture, some atheists are frequently assumed to be irreligious,[citation needed] although other atheists are spiritual.[11][12] Moreover, atheism also figures in certain religious and spiritual belief systems, such as Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Neopagan movements[13] such as Wicca.[14] Jainism and some forms of Buddhism do not advocate belief in gods,[15] whereas Hinduism holds atheism to be valid, but difficult to follow spiritually.[16]

Atheism is an religion.

[No.3933802]

>>3933798
I'm offering more freedom to use what definition suits.
You're the one that wants to confine our language to singular usage.

[Anonymous No.3933803]

>disbelief

In Russia, there is no word for that. You need a whole sentence to express the idea.

[Anonymous No.3933804]

>>3933802
You Angratziest.

[No.3933805]

>>3933801
According to you Dawkins and the Dalai Lama believe the same thing. How retarded of you.

[Anonymous No.3933808]

>>3933789
I'll sum uo my claims here:
Atheism is commonly used to mean REJECTION of belief in a deity.
It can be used to express lack of belief, but no dictionary proposes it as its most common definition.

You can argue wether it is possible to lack a believe without rejecting it etc., that's another discussion, but can we agree on these points?

oh, fuck that shit.
I'm an omniquantist now.
God is omnipotent so every religion is true at the same time, even if they contraddict each other.

[Anonymous No.3933809]

>Atheism is an religion.

In the same way that being a person is a religion.

[Anonymous No.3933813]

Doesn't it become a belief when you try to defend why God doesnt exist instead of simply being convinced it doesnt?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933821]

>>3933813
nope, still doesnt make it a religion, it just means you dislike the fact that other people are religious so much, that you feel the desire to convince them away from it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUPWMvKH3tQ

[Anonymous No.3933822]

>>3933813
Argle warble garble gargle?

[No.3933826]

>>3933808
>It can be used to express lack of belief,

And language is ultimately defined by practice

>wether it is possible to lack a believe without rejecting

it clearly is. a newborn or someone who hasn't heard of god in any way obviously doesn't reject god, but they don't hold a belief of god. Once you've heard at least one idea of god, if you reject it you're an atheist., for the ideas of god that you don't know of and don't believe in, you are stil atheist towards them since as you just said "It can be used to express lack of belief"

the fact that atheists fight among themselves is least productive and may even serve to emphasise similarities between schisms of Christianity and those of atheism.

[Anonymous No.3933829]

>>3933821
Oh. You mean trolling? That's for making babby trolls.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933830]

>>3933821
^^ hard mode: take a shot of spirits everytime the word 'religion' is said

[Anonymous No.3933832]

>>3933830
Wow. That's desperate.

[No.3933840]

>>3933813
I would say that trying to convince people that an unknowable god doesn't exist is superstition and possibly religious. While expressing skepticism towards claims of people that purport to know god is not a superstitious or religious

[Anonymous No.3933845]

>>3933350
I don't think there is a way to prove or disprove the existence of magical woodland tree elves, but I will still call people who believe in them superstitious retards.

[No.3933846]

>>3933821
cant tell if trap or just male voiceover

[Anonymous No.3933847]

>>3933826
We disagree on the meaning of rejecting a belief it seems.
I don't actively claim that there is no god (rejection).

Fuck that, by this point I just don't wanna be associated to you people anymore.
I'll go with satanism.

[Anonymous No.3933850]

belief =/= fact.

Although people do treat beliefs like facts.

I believe all politicians are honest.

Prove me wrong.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933854]

>>3933846
its a guy, just a guy with long hair.

[No.3933855]

>>3933847
>by this point I just don't wanna be associated to you people anymore.

obvious buttmad teenage hipster sentiment

>I don't actively claim that there is no god

not many atheists do this. For some gods they do. Not for all gods.

there are multiple definitions of god.

[Anonymous No.3933856]

>>3933854
and lipstick?

[No.3933857]

>>3933854
why are earrings and lipstick?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933858]

>>3933850
easy, we just have to provide one example of one politician being dishonest one time. easy as fuck, i'm just too lazy to do it.

[Anonymous No.3933859]

>>3933854
No, it's a troll, and now you're pregnant with troll babbys for using trolling in an argument.

[Anonymous No.3933861]

>>3933858
I don't believe you.

[Anonymous No.3933862]

>>3933855
I'm 26 and hardly a hipster.

Actually, in my experience most do.
Dawkins and the other 3 knights, for example, claim there is no god, even though they don't claim so with absolute certainty.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933866]

>>3933856
>>3933857
erm, i thik he's transvestite or some shit...not actually sure. maybe theres an explanation video near the start...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vkD5mfrRWM
ah, shorter hair in that one

[No.3933870]

>>3933862
>even though they don't claim so with absolute certainty.

Well there you go. So they don't actually claim it. they claim it for some gods, not for all ideas of god

[No.3933872]

>>3933862
>I'm 26 and hardly a hipster.

No point in saying this except egocentrism . I never said you were a teen or a hipster. I said the sentiment exhibited was characteristic of such.

[Anonymous No.3933874]

>>3933866
TROLOLOLOLOL!

This is your argument? A Jewtube troll?

Well, I'm convinced. You're a fuckface.

[Anonymous No.3933876]

>>3933350
Yawn duuuuumb, you imply that a magical being with super magical powers could still exist that created everything out of magical nothing with his magical beard and magical things, your as bad as theists.

definition of atheism - denying the baseless assumptions of religion.

It is a non issue there is no evidence for it so why believe at all, straight stupidity, if tomorrow we found a 2000 year old book that said metal is made up of tiny kettles, following theist logic you would have to believe that too.

[Anonymous No.3933878]

>>3933870
I believe there is no more chocolate in the kitchen.
I don't know if there is still chockolate in the kitchen.

Do these two things have the same meaning to you?

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933882]

>>3933874
lol, that wasnt the argument, the first vid was, but this was just going off on a slight tangent.

[Anonymous No.3933885]

>>3933878

You could easily go into the kitchen and check couldn't you? It wouldn't require years of reading and wisdom searching.

[No.3933887]

>>3933878
of course not, they are independent of each other. Thats the point of the whole agnostic/atheist spectrum. Why? whats your point?

[Anonymous No.3933890]

>>3933876
>>denying the baseless assumptions of religion.

theism can exist without religion, fail.

>>3933872
Please, nigga...

[Anonymous No.3933892]

>>3933876

sometimes I wished atheists abandoned the concept of god as an old man sitting in a cloud

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933894]

>>3933885
that's not the point.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933896]

>>3933892
its easier if we strawman the argument, rather than trying to argue against the possibility of a vague deity that hasn't had its characteristics and abilities properly defined.

[No.3933900]

>>3933890
>Please, nigga...

Ah yes, completely failure to acknowledge your misinterpretation of text

[Anonymous No.3933901]

>>3933892
You cannot abandon that which you do not bring with you.

[No.3933909]

>>3933892
I never do this and most educated atheist don't especially those who have experience of religion. So in fact your idea of atheists is a strawman

[Anonymous No.3933911]

>>3933805

That's not what I said, derp.

I knew atheists had the same talent to twist other peoples words in their mouth though.

[Anonymous No.3933912]

>>3933890
>theism can exist without religion
When does it.

[Anonymous No.3933915]

>>3933885
What the fuck has this to do with anything?

>>3933887
I give up.
It's probably my fault but I'm incapable of explainig myself better.

How about we start a campaign to encourage the original use of agnosticism?

The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis” — had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle ...Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic.” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant.


Not comparing it to atheism etc. just proposing.

[Anonymous No.3933918]

>>3933912

Example: Einsteinian god.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933919]

>>3933918
= pantheism
not theism

[No.3933921]

>>3933911
atheism is the characteristic of not believing or rejecting belief in god.

Many diverse groups share this quality. You might as well be arguing wearing shoes is a religion.

[Anonymous No.3933922]

>>3933900
No point in saying this except trying to feel intellectually superior.

Please, american...

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933923]

>>3933912
>When does it.
when people kinda vaguely believe in some sort of deity, but dont follow a particular religion and dont pray, go to worship, go on pilgrimages etc
harriet has this vague kinda 'theism without religion' thing, as far as i can tell

[Anonymous No.3933924]

>>3933911
>implying athiesm is a belief

I know you are, but what am I?...INFINITY!

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933926]

>>3933923
*deism
perhaps

[No.3933929]

>>3933915
None of that second response contradicts anything I"ve been saying in relation to >>>>3933887

why do you think we're arguing??

[No.3933933]

>>3933922
>intellectually superior.


makes silly assumptions like:

>Please, american...

[Anonymous No.3933934]

What do you call a person who believes in a God? Theist.

If you remove the theists, all you have left are people.

[No.3933937]

>>3933934
And those people will argue for eternity over the definition of themselves.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933940]

>>3933749
>>3933934
troll didn't work first time hun, fuck off

[Anonymous No.3933941]

>>3933923
Oh so nothing that matters, i dont care about a single persons willful ignorance, its when its widespread and taught like its an acceptable option to decide im going to fucking live in lala land now, heres my new imaginary friend, his name is god!

>>3933890
Explain why its fail.

[Anonymous No.3933943]

Ok, I have a doubt:
Let's say I believe in the existence of a deity because:
pantheism
simulation argument
Bohm "collective unconscious"

I believe all these three hypothesis have equal chance of being real and that there is a chance superior to 50% that there is a god.
Would I still be an atheist by your terms?

The whole thing sounds a lot like a semantic circle jerk to me.

[Anonymous No.3933944]

Modern day agnostics are mostly theist anyways.

They still believe in god yet they question his existence.

Some are borderline atheist afraid to make the leap.

[Anonymous No.3933948]

>>3933943
No, you're theistic.

[Anonymous No.3933949]

>>3933937
We are always seeking to know ourselves.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933950]

>>3933941
agreed. private personal beliefs not affecting the rest of us = fine
using your retarded beliefs to affect science, education, laws, politics, etc is fucking irritating

[No.3933946]

>>3933943
No you'd be theist. dont listen to EK. pantheism is theism.

[No.3933951]

>>3933940
how is that a troll?

[Anonymous No.3933952]

>>3933919

Then why is it called pantheism and not notheism?

0/10

[No.3933955]

>>3933949
Not by labelling yourself by what you are not which is essentially what atheists and agnostics do

[Anonymous No.3933956]

>>3933949
So, religion comes from personal ego?

Makes sense.

[Anonymous No.3933958]

>>3933924

> implying it isn't.

Damn son, you're getting boring.

[Anonymous No.3933953]

>>3933921

That's something completely different.

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933954]

>>3933946
pantheism is 'sexed up atheism' according to dawkins

[EK !EKFQOBUFnQ No.3933959]

>>3933951
>implying theists arn't people

[Anonymous No.3933960]

>>3933955

Religion is as good a personal definition as psychology, tarot cards, or astrology signs.

[Anonymous No.3933961]

>>3933956
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j8ZMMuu7MU

[Anonymous No.3933963]

Bertrand russel, einstein and sagan all specified they were agnostics, not atheists.

I'm not saying "they are smart so they are correct", but it's worth considering.

[No.3933964]

>>3933959
That wasn't the point of it at all. That would be a silly conclusion. if you remove the theists, all you have is people without a name. we wouldnt have to define ourselves by what we are NOT if theists didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.3933968]

>>3933959
They are people with a belief in a God. They define and describe themselves with those beliefs. Some kill gays and "mudslimes" in defense of those beliefs.

[Anonymous No.3933974]

>>3933963
The idea that you should be agnostic because einstein was is as bad as being atheist because dawkins is, im atheist because i dont buy into spiritual/religious crap, not because its edgy or whatever labels theists have put on it to make it seem less attractive, it is still and always will be the more intelligent option.

I dont see why some retard writing in a book 2000 years ago that god is real, and a bunch of fucking retards believeing it makes it a valid opinion.

Agnostics are scientists without the balls to say i dont believe in magic.

[Anonymous No.3933978]

>>3933946
>>3933948
well, technically deist, his beliefs are based on logic (we may argue how solid this logic is) not on faith.

[Anonymous No.3933987]

>>3933974
I was actually arguing about the definition of the term kid, you know, what we've been talking about for, oh, two hundred posts or so.
But thanks for your two cents.

[Anonymous No.3933992]

>>3933974
>The idea that you should be agnostic because

Non-theists usually have their own reasons.

[Anonymous No.3934002]

>my lack of a face when agnosticism is a retarded position

Okay, I'm totally going to be agnostic about the INFINITY OF PROPOSITIONAL OBJECTS CONCIEVABLE BY THE HUMAN IMAGINATION.

I'm an agnostic about cabbage bear rabbit vampire lords that can only be seen on a spectrum beyond human instrumentation
I'm an agnostic that our reality is really a simulated reality of a bratty snot nosed kid fucking around with the variables in his HUEGASS300 ALIEMWURE COOKTUTOR
I'm agnostic about a frilly umbrella made out of the body of a deceased solar God that seeks to resurrect itself via the slow absorption of power from our son, not knowing that the habit of using them in sunny days is mostly out of fashion in western nations.

Okay I can be "agnostic" about these things or I can be the opposite of mendacious and simply acquiesce that I have an atheism about these objects.

Or I can be the petty autistic spirit who misunderstands the nature of religion and belief and insists on the "agnostic" hypotheses as a form of social posturing.

[Anonymous No.3934006]

I suggest the term "non religious" to agno- to atheists who don't want top be associated with antitheists.
Personally, I believe that a lot of people would be too dangerous or too unhappy without religion.
It's a social technology that can be harnessed to keep tha masses happy.
If you become an atheist you are welcomed into the elite or killed.

...ok, not really, but it would make a nice short story.

>>3933974
>>some retard writing in a book 2000 years ago

We are not arguing about religion pal, we are talking about belief in a superior entity - I doubt anyone here is a believer in any mayor theistic religion.

[Anonymous No.3934053]

>>3933987
Oh im sooooo sorry, for entering the thread at the moment you made a post with no quote, kid.

[Anonymous No.3934723]

>202 posts ITT

why.jpg