Things That Annoy Me - A Short List

[FractaLove358]

"You either believe in God or you don't":

There are some that would say "I'm not sure whether a God exists or not". Where would you categorize them? Why is it that "agnostic atheism" or "weak atheism" has to be the default position rather than "agnostic theism" or "weak theism". Both of them are rejection of claims positions. Would you consider yourself both an agnostic atheist and an agnostic theist? Would you conjunct the two term to "agnostic"? Why or why not?

[shazzadee]

I personally think that athiests and agnostics need to take a stronger political standpoint. Every year, evolution is becoming more and more marginalised in the teaching curriculum and creationists are pushing for their stories to be taught as 'fact' in schools. If you want to 'enrich' your childrens lives' with Christ, then send them to church. I fully intend on pulling my child out of R.E/Christian propaganda classes. Band together and fight for the freedom to learn and abolish pseudo-science!

[helloenemy]

are people really trying to get religion taught in public schools. Thats stupid, I got to leave my Private school because of religion =\

[guitarplayercj2002]

it's not about teaching "religion" it's about giving equal oppertunity to different ideas of how we got here. Big Bang and evolution are both theorys and have no scientific proof. Creation is another possibility. Let me be clear, it is not just possible, but it's how we got here, but from a schools point of view, there is no more evidence for one than the other, so why not teach both?

[TheEfkk]

That is because there is a massive amount of scientific evidence for evolution and none for creationism. Who could imagine that it was that easy?

[codymchargue]

That easy huh? You've just prooved evolution over creationism in a short youtube comment, I'm sure you're proud of yourself, it's a scientific break through. Try backing up what you say, and instead of siting a dozen biased sources, try doing real research that isn't guided by your preconcieved notions. What you've learned from your parents or other personal reason you have for not believing that God exists doesn't mean that he doesn't. Be open minded.

[TheEfkk]

Not really that much of a scientific breakthrough; it has been known to science for over 150 years. If anyone is "guided by preconcieved notions" it is creationism. In fact, that is the very definition of creationism.

Being open minded means assessing evidence, not believing everything you are told by religious authorities.

Science proves that no gods exists, independent of your personal religious beliefs.

[codymchargue]

My preconcieved notions were that there is no God, and was taught that evolution was true. I'm not being guided by religious authorities, I'm making the choice all on my own, based on the evidence that I've seen. It is impossible to disprove an infinite being with finite tests, and EVEN IF God didn't exist, it would be impossible to prove it. Evolution is still just a theory after 150 years. I do apologize however for my sarcasum in my first comment, I think it was the "That easy" remark.

[TheEfkk]

Of course it is possible; all it has to do is fail a single empirical test and god is disproven. In science, a theory means a well-supported explanation to some part of the natural world, not a random guess. For instance, the atomic theory and the cell theory are all theories, yet they are among the most well-established ideas in the history of humanity.

[Signofthedollar]

Existence exists. Anyone who says how can I be so certain of this really annoys me.

[unassumption]

Thanks for clarifying that story :O I thought viruses injecting DNA really did effect us :S

The anti-western medicine core in alternative medicine need pwning.

People who abuse the term 'agnostic,' applying it to religious metaphysics rather than epistemology, pisses me off.

I hate people who try and make out their position is the common sense view and doesn't need defending :I

Politics is more important than atheism; I don't care Rand and Stalin were both atheists.

[lazyperfectionist1]

Well now, this skeptical infighting you refer to, isn't that where the peer-review process comes from? That's quite important, isn't it?

[RhunDraco]

Skeptical infighting does not equal the scientific process and peer review.

Skeptics, and scientists, being human, have egos and many people are reluctant to see their ideas shot down, no matter if they're shown evidence that is clearly overwhelming. It can take time for some people to accept that something they thought was correct is not (or maybe only partially correct).

I think what NaoTio is talking about is that clashing of egos. It happens in every area, not just skepticism & science.

[lazyperfectionist1]

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said the one results from the other. Isn't this how we keep each other rational?

[HuggyXBear064]

There is no absolute proof of god's existance or non-existance. The theists like to think that there is a god, the atheists like to think there isn't. Agnostics don't know. The only people who think there IS absolute proof are called IDIOTS (also christians, muslims, jews, hindus, pagans etc.). So jack, you have it the wrong way around, all atheists are agnostics (or really stupid) but not all agnostics are atheists. There are also agnostic theists (at least by my definitions)

[Ashadow700]

Actully... I thought an agnostic is a person who says that you cant know if god does or does not exist?

[dudev]

In reality, the politically-correct term "agnostic" was created by TH Huxley because the term "atheist" was so damn offensive to all those swooning uptight Victorians in the 19th century.

[lazyperfectionist1]

That addresses why it was created, but not what it means.

[dudev]

Apparently, over the last 150 years being an agnostic has meant --"I'm too cowardly to commit to either position, so I'll sit on the fence, and smarmily pretend to be part of both worlds".

[lazyperfectionist1]

I disagree. In the days when I called myself one, it was because I was, by habit, focused on the wrong question.

[dudev]

Yes, good point. How we ask the question is as important as the answer we provide.

[lazyperfectionist1]

The problem with the term "agnostic" is that it's too broad to be useful. None of us have any way to know whether any gods exist, or leprechauns, or dragons, or fairies. "I am agnostic" is equivalent to saying, "I am human." But we're talking about two different questions here:

"Do you believe?"

"Do you know?"

The first is the difference between theism and atheism, and the second between gnosticism and agnosticism.

[burnoutnt]

About alternative healing, there are scientists who do accept these alternatives as they have seen the evidence of "phenomena" on healing without conventional medicine. There is a lot to learn about this world, and being annoyed by something we may not agree with is somewhat being close minded without doing enough research into the subject.

[samten54]

Do you know what we call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

In other words alternative medicine is not medicine. It has zero value. It only appears to work because the bodies natural healing ability fixed the problem or the environment changed and that fixed the problem. If people believe something different then that is religious belief or superstition. Only tests that eliminate the effects of the environment and the bodies own healing power can prove a medicine is a medicine.

[Heyaitsjohn]

Finally, someone who understands the semantics between agnostic and atheist. I've been identifying as an agnostic atheist since I was young. . .and I'm really sick of arguing with people over the validity of that position.

[JeanMichelAbrassart]

You can't avoid infighting in human groups...

[NaoTio]

Of course not, but it still annoys me. Most of the fighting is for such petty reasons... *sigh*

[TragedyZ]

I like tacos =D

And I've seen every single one of your videos O.o