some one please correct me if im wrong, but Atheists say when you die, your existence is over.But I have herd scientist say that energy cant be created or destroyed,only transformed and that the same energy that exsisted during the big bang is the same energy that the universe is made of today.if this is true then your soul or energy does continue, maybe even recycled in unlimited possibilities. Destiny doesnt have to be Heaven or Hell, but it doesnt have to be the grave either.
I am agnostic and I kind of agree. This is too much about semantics and proofs. The reson why I can not call me atheist is because I have never worried about the proof prespective, but it is valid to postpone your belief of an unproven claim.
Another thing about being agnostic, that does not mean you believe any more than you disbelieve.
It has never been problem for me to argue because I am simply a humanism and it does not matter if god exist or not. I believe in the good > bad in man.
@steverock85 Agnosticism is kind of a cop out or a way to divert the negative attention if you tack on that label when you really think there cannot be a god. To those that aren't sure. It doesn't matter. Most people think atheists are pretty confident there is no god. We can't change how people interpret words.
@RuinSonic - Being unsure isn't a cop out, it is the most logical answer.
If the question is, do you believe aliens exist elsewhere in the universe?
1. Yes, they do exist.
2. No, they do not exist.
3. Unsure
In my opinion anyone saying either 1 or 2 with 100% certainty is an idiot, but it is perfectly acceptable to be unsure, or unsure but lean toward either 1 or 2.
@crazywaffleking So where does agnosticism end? Is it equally probable the Muslim God exists? You can't pretend like atheism has a burden of proof yet saying it's pretty much a 50/50 doesn't.
Yes, but regarding theism, the situation is different:
1. Theists say "There is a god (and it is my god)!"
2. Atheists say "We don't believe you"
2.1.. Anti-theists say "There is no god!"
...
So atheists are not "unsure", we simply don't accept the claims for gods, without necessarily denying the potential existence of god(s). Anti-theism is a private case of atheism.
I have been getting the same exact debate tactic from some guy that messaged me saying that my use of the word atheism is wrong, which it is not. But I have no idea what he hopes to gain. He keeps saying that atheism is a claim and its not. So I came to the same conclusion you did, so what does it matter what I call myself. Regardless I still have no reason to convert to a religion as there is no evidence that a god even exists. Even if he wins, nothing changes other than a word.
The problem is, that when you actively believe or disbelieve, consciously or not your'e making a claim based on lack of knowledge which is an ignorant claim based on ignorance itself, which make both sides just as responsible for the burden of proof.
Consequently, "Agnosticism" makes no claims and remains open (in some cases) to the same, therefore the burden of proof does not apply. So in a way, it's more than just a semantics battle. It's about who doesn't have the burden of proof.
It's still semantics because you are arguing atheism is the assertion that god doesn't exist, whereas just about everyone else would argue that it is the lack of conviction in the religious claim that it does.
By the average "agnostics" logic, not believing in sentient unicorns controlling humanity from the shadows constitutes a zealous belief that the very universe bars the very possibility of said beings and that all disbelievers spend their lives arguing such.
@ogith By your definition, an Atheist doesn't believe in god, but doesn't necessarily disbelieve. In other words, there's no opinion either way. So why even entertain the concept of belief in the first place if there's no commitment to it or its negation? If the atheist/theist were to make the assertion (disbelief/belief), they'd be committing to a conclusion without evidence (arguing from ignorance) or with evidence (no need for belief when you got the facts) (cont)
I'll cut you short right there and say I've no interest in further discussion of this whole subject.
Just recently had a needlessly extended session of debate regarding it that pretty much solidified that there are far too many ideological and dogmatic forces involved for any true talk to be had about the subject. Too many agnostics in circulation with bad experiences with (a)theists/whatever and will do all manner of mental gymnastics to arbitrarily distance themselves from either
@ZeerosFate Then how could the concept of belief/disbelief be rational in the first place? There's knowledge with a certain degree of certainty or no knowledge. Opinions (or belief, however you see it) are a man made concept that fill gaps that knowledge can't. It's nothing more than that, and we need to outgrow it and phase it out of the spoken language. It's divisive, not fact-driven, and more damaging than irrelevant.
I'll just say that even the likes of Huxley worked from the presupposition that the atheist standpoint was necessarily one of gnostic rejection of the very concept of a god rather than a lack of conviction in the claims offered by religious sources, and that accepting any base possibility of the divine does not negate the fact that you live/act atheist in every regard when it comes to god(s)
No prayer, no sacrifices, no belief that not following these could raise divine ire, etcetc
@ogith I thank you for addressing my initial post and sorry that your last discussion ended up nowhere. It's tough enough to find someone that understands that being proven wrong is actually a concept to be celebrated, because accepting it oneself is no less rewarding. In regards to my personal bias against the atheist/theist label, I'm fully aware of it, but also aware of my bias' absence of merit in regards to what the truth really is.
@thebattle4everything “As far as me not saying anything else, I'll take you up on that invite” Obviously you didn’t since you felt the need to comment one last time. Maybe this will be the time you’ll keep your word, but I doubt it. Just like your arguments, you can’t keep to your word. BTW, you didn’t pass my challenge dumb ass! Your responses were funny though. Huh, moon...keyboard…idea. You deserve an award for being so stupid.
@akouleze I can divide people up into being with either "team Jacob" or "team (insert name of werewolf from Twilight here)" and come up with shit to explain why you have to be one or the other but that doesn't mean everybody on the planet instantly has to agree with that system even if I do manage to trick some people into buying in to it. Just putting deists in the same catagory as theists is quite problamatic. There's a reason why deists are called deists and theists are called theists.
@thebattle4everything An Atheist is going to say any minute now we don’t make any claims! Watch and see. They are so predictable just like a Christian with his Bible. Be Forewarned! Arguing with an Atheist is like picking up a dictionary and reciting every definition of every word times 100 since they are cowards to admit when they are wrong!
@thebattle4everything People remember this. Theists argue with their Bible. Atheists argue about definitions. Neither side are focusing on the proof except for Agnostics! Beware! Atheists and some Theists are trying to hijack the real definition of Agnosticism (which is we don’t know either way) by trying to combine the two and saying that people can be both. NOT POSSIBLE! They are simply trying to distance themselves from having to provide proof for their claims!
@thebattle4everything In the end, people should not be fooled by Atheists or Theists as they both use the same methodology to come to their conclusion which is faith! Theists have no problems admitting this, but again they don’t understand the implications of what they are saying. Atheists are a bit smarter, but still are wrong to automatically take the opposite side of the issue simply because no proof has been presented yet.
@thebattle4everything All Atheists upon FIRST MEETING them make statements like “God does not exist.” or “He is not real” or “there is no God”. It’s not until you are in a real debate with an Atheist that he/she starts to backtrack and wants to start questioning the definition of every single word in the dictionary just to drive you crazy so that you would give up! It is as if you forgot your English vocabulary when you debate an Atheist even for simple everyday words.
@thebattle4everything My flat earth argument shows many similarities with Atheism and Theism. Both sides have taken an opposite stance. Both sides have reasons why they believe their stance. Neither side had proof for their stance. If you don’t see the logical argument here then you are simply choosing to lie to yourself just like Theists which is what you’ve been doing all this time! Furthermore, “skepticism and dogmatically sticking to old beliefs” are both nonetheless beliefs!
@thebattle4everything “mathematics proved the earth was round, not technology” You can call it whatever you want as I’m not going to debate the definitions of every word in the dictionary with you, but the point remains that before the earth was proven to be a sphere (BTW, it’s not round since you like to be so technical), mankind started to formulate beliefs without proof. The majority believed the earth was flat because it looked like it and because there was no evidence showing otherwise.
@thebattle4everything You think you tricked me, but in the end you failed. If all you have to show are deceptive tricks in order to make a point than you are beyond stupid. Remember, this is not a test of my knowledge about Physics, but instead it is a test about formulating argument fallacies! Something is either knowledge or a belief and a belief becomes knowledge once proven. Either we KNOW gravity is not a force or we BELIEVE gravity is not a force. Dumb ass!
@thebattle4everything You first write to me “We believe that gravity is a force that exists because of our knowledge of physics.” Then you write “Einstein argued that GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE.” If gravity is not a force then we don’t need to believe that gravity is a force! My argument wasn’t wrong, simply because my knowledge of physics is limited doesn’t mean anything. It just shows that I don’t know physics, but that doesn’t mean that physicists don’t know it’s a fact or belief! Stupid!
@thebattle4everything Oh, and by the way, it was a pleasure spanking you. I know you must be sad that we just destroyed and completely decimated your "argument" but I'm sure you'll recover eventually. Good bye Mr nazi atheist troll.
@thebattle4everything Idiots like you only help to chase away people from atheism by deploying adhominems everytime they lose an argument. So like I said before, the original/REAL definition of atheism is a positive claim that there are no gods. It's really pretty simple and shouldn't require years of research like you suggest. Gnostic atheism is fallacious so by default, agnostic atheism is a needless term. So-called gnostic atheism IS A CULT AND IS A RELIGION. Now go suck Rev.Dawkins dick:)
@thebattle4everything Calm down Mr. Troll LOL:D Gay or not, you're probably still a virgin. I mean where would you even find the time to hook up with anybody when you're just a last word troll who plays internet bully for like 19 hours a day? At any rate, I can't say I bothered to read any of that crap you must of put so much effort into coming up with because you have already proven that you have nothing intelligent to say. You have no restraint, no discipline, and no balls.
@thebattle4everything You probably shouldn’t say anything further because you keep on misinterpretating every single word on purpose and bouncing all over the place since you can’t provide any serious logical counter argument. You can think that Atheism is not a belief, but that doesn’t change the fact that Atheism is a belief like Theism since the lack of belief in God (aka there is no god) has not been proven to be common knowledge like gravity or the earth being a sphere.
@thebattle4everything Why should someone provide evidence for lacking a belief anyways? It can be reckless. Let’s go back in history when most people didn’t believe the earth was a sphere, but instead flat. At the time we didn’t have the technology to prove or disprove the earth was a sphere so most people decided it was flat. Not only was everyone wrong, but people on opposite sides were persecuted (like Atheists and Christians today). If only people believed what they can prove!
@thebattle4everything No wonder you don’t make any sense since you don’t know how to use or define belief, knowledge, oxymoron etc. Finally, “You've proven to be a constant goalpost shifter as well” Huh? You make a statement but don’t back it up??? Once again, that really shows that you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say. Maybe you need to take a time out and learn the basic vocabulary of words like belief and knowledge before you make a bigger fool of yourself!
@thebattle4everything “knowledge is grounded in belief and vice versa. They are complimentary things. We believe that gravity is a force that exists because of our knowledge of physics.” Let me rephrase for you that last sentence. We KNOW that gravity is a force that exists because of our KNOWLEDGE (BEEN PROVEN) of physics. You can use Theists “believe” in God or Atheists don’t “believe” in God, but we “know” that gravity is a force. You’re beyond stupid.
@thebattle4everything “your theory about belief being replaced by knowledge is ridiculous, because as humans we are often utterly incapable of distinguishing between the two.” No, you’re the only incapable person of distinguishing between the two since you don’t know that belief is knowledge without proof or knowledge is belief with proof. But of course, I’m not surprised to hear this from you since you really don’t know any of your vocabulary.
@thebattle4everything I’ve proven my point. You can’t answer my question. You tried to read too much into my challenge that you came up with silly words like “moon” and “keyboard” and could not even give me one full sentence because you know that nothing falls outside a belief or knowledge. Instead of admitting it, you tried to be a smart ass with your responses which shows that you have nothing intelligent to say. You can’t even focus on one specific argument without jumping around.
@thebattle4everything PART 3 of 3 If you think I’m wrong then answer the one question that all you Atheists are avoiding and stop being a coward and dodging my questions! Can you give me one example of something in the universe that doesn’t fall in either a belief or knowledge category? If you successfully do this, I would be glad to rethink my stance as being an Agnostic BY ITSELF. Do not dodge my question like you’ve been doing before! Do not try to change the subject either!
@thebattle4everything PART 2 of 3 Also, Everything starts as a belief and is replaced to become knowledge when proof is presented which is the reason why you can’t combine a belief with knowledge on the same thing. Therefore, the term “Agnostic Atheist” is an oxymoron. Also, since Theism and Atheism haven’t been proven to be right yet, they are both considered beliefs and NOT knowledge…continue reading to PART 3of 3.
@thebattle4everything PART 1 of 3 “many people insist on categorizing atheism as a belief--when it is not a belief at all.” Sorry, Atheism is a belief. Here’s why. Everything in the universe falls into 2 categories. 1) Belief 2) Knowledge. You either know something is true which requires proof to back it up or you think (AKA believe) something is true which doesn’t require any proof. Belief and knowledge can’t be combined for the same thing…continue reading to PART 2 of 3.
@thebattle4everything There are millions of things mankind doesn’t know. Some things we may eventually have an answer to because it may require advance technology to get the answer. Other things we may never know the answer no matter how much time goes by. Am I suppose to automatically say that because we don’t know now it is a negative (Atheism) or do the opposite which would be positive (Theism)??? No. The Truth is to leave at I don’t know (Agnosticism) until someone can prove or disprove.
@thebattle4everything “Your argument seems to be of the position that one must believe in everything that they lack belief in” No! As an Agnostic once again, I do NOT believe OR disbelieve in God(s). Instead, I KNOW that the existence and nonexistence of God is unknowable just like millions of other things mankind doesn’t know. I live my life with the things I KNOW (FACT) and IGNORE beliefs until someone turns a Belief into Knowledge which would require proof.
@akouleze Man, @thebattle4everything sure is one stubborn pig headed troll... maybe he's uptight because he's still a virgin? I think he needs some dick lol:)
@thebattle4everything Who's joking? You people are nazis. That's why nobody wants to be affiliated with your gnostic cult. Since you were the first one to resort to employing logical fallacies, the inference is that you did so because you could no longer defend your position intelligently and therefore you have lost the argument. There's no need to be embarrased. Just because you're a forty something year old virgin who still gets breast fed doesn't mean you can't change.
@thebattle4everything Ad hominem is always a logical fallacy and this was no exception. To say other wise is special pleading. If you literally are calling me an idiot, then you are a liar since I've already demonstrated an IQ of over 26 and the fact that you don't like me for not agreeing with you won't change that. Even the most immature of children can make their points without resorting to needless insults so I'll assume that you must be emotionally underdeveloped.
@thebattle4everything “Atheists don't need to provide PROOF for having a lack of belief.” I stand correct. Atheists and Theists take the same approach to come to their conclusion which is using faith. When you make a claim you need to back it up! You may think that Atheism doesn’t make a claim, but you would be wrong. When Atheists say “I disbelieve (equals do not believe or lack of belief) in any God(s)” that is making a BIG claim. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative claim! Done.
@akouleze Can you believe what an angry troll this @thebattle4everything is? Even his screenname screams douchebag. He must be an insecure COWARD in person LOLRIOT! LOL and they wonder why so many people don't want to be associated with their kind LOL:D I didn't leave christianity just so I could join another cult. Hopefully, this troll will just do the right thing kill himself one day and make the world safer for decent people.
@akouleze LOL at how hard he tries to get us to agree to his definition just because his nazi atheist spiritual over lords told him so even though it's completely different from what most reputable dictionaries sayLOL:D I sure hope @thebattle4everything doesn't throw another temper tantrum because he keeps losing every argument.
@thebattle4everything And finally eight, “If you would just watch Qualia Soup's "lack of belief" vid as I recommended, perhaps you would understand that saying "yes" or "no" to god/s are not our only options--and also that the term AGNOSTIC is not the "middle choice" because it says nothing about beliefs and only makes a claim to knowledge.” I’ve watched his videos, and I’m looking forward to debating him as he argues no differently than you.
@thebattle4everything Seven, “Personally, I find it absurd that you would give the same privileges to beliefs as you would scientific theory (especially as we increase our knowledge).” Simply because we’ve increased our knowledge about many things doesn’t mean that we’ve solved the proof of God(s) existence or nonexistence. Until then, Atheism and Theism are merely beliefs and not knowledge. Eight,..
@thebattle4everything Six, “The fact that you give equal weight to theism and atheism makes your position seem untenable to me.” Untenable is the position of Agnosticism which is what I am and have been arguing all along from the beginning. Atheists and Theists want to argue that issues of God(s) are tenable when it is really untenable. The first question any person must ask themselves is can the answer of God be obtainable? If not, what's the point of going any further? If yes, proof? Seven,
@thebattle4everything Five, “There are times when I will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, claim a specific god (like the Christian god) doesn't exist. However, there are countless varieties of gods, and I will respond to each accordingly by saying: "irresolvable" "no evidence" "self-refuting" etc.” If something is “irresolvable”, then why would you jump to the conclusion of being an Atheist and say that you lack the belief in God(s)? Six,…
@thebattle4everything Four, “You are arguing that beliefs are shit, so agnosticism is the only logical way to go--I would be inclined to agree--except for the fact that ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF.” In number 2, you said to me that Atheism is “not a claim to knowledge”. Here you add by saying that Atheism is “not a belief”. So if Atheism is outside of knowledge and beliefs then what is left? Answer, nothing! You keep changing your definition which is why you’re an idiot! Five,…
@thebattle4everything Three, “And, no, when discussing atheism and theism, personal beliefs are not irrelevant--beliefs are actually the entire point.” Beliefs are simply knowledge without proof. Therefore arguing with beliefs becomes irrelevant as the purpose of arguing is to gain knowledge. If Atheists can’t provide proof for their stance then they are no different then Theists as they are simply stating their beliefs. Four…
@thebattle4everything Two, “as LACKING belief is DIFFERENT that believing there is no god/s. Atheism is NOT a claim to knowledge” Then what is the point of arguing if not for knowledge??? And if Atheism is not a claim to knowledge, then what is Atheism? Answer, a Belief as the opposite of knowledge is belief. Something moves from beliefs to knowledge when there is proof. Three,…
@thebattle4everything One, I’ve never said the following statement so stop putting words in my mouth. If you can’t argue without twisting my sentences then don’t argue at all. “The simple fact that you clumped theists and scientists together shows a lack of understanding on your part.” Two,…
@thebattle4everything Of all the people I’ve debated about the issues of God, your arguments are the most nonsensical. I’m only going to respond to a few of your arguments as I can see that you don’t know how to argue. There is no point for me to argue with someone who make contradiction statements. So let’s get started here. One,…
@thebattle4everything Remember, the bible is total bullshit so there's no reason not to commit suicide. I read that men are more successful at it than girls so you might have to make more than one attempt but I'm sure if you put your heart into it, you'll succeed. END OF STORY.
@thebattle4everything You should be ashamed of yourself. At any rate, all of your words are complete rubbish, and your parents really should of had an abortion. You are a complete failure in life, you'll always be a virgin and the only reason you act tough online is to compensate for what a sad pathetic douchebag you are in reality.
@thebattle4everything What's really too sad for words is that you are a nazi gnostic atheist who tries to cyber bully his bullshit onto other people even when all of the resources that matter (such as DICTIONARIES) disagree. You're not even enough of an adult to agree to disagree so you throw temper tantrums like a little girl who just had her first period and wasn't wearing a tampon.
@thebattle4everything You want to talk about an "internet tough guy act"? I pride myself on carrying myself the EXACT SAME WAY ONLONE AS I DO IN REAL LIFE and I'm more than happy to prove this to you in person. You on the other hand are an immature jackass who actually goes so far as to "special plead" why his childish insults should be seen as anything other than ad hominem so that's not one, but two logical fallacies you're guilty of and what a coincidence that these tactics are theist faves.
@akouleze Not only that, @thebattle4lotion or whatever he calls himself is also jerk and a cowardly deluded narcissist with NO BALLS! He goes around starting shit with people online like it's cute and really thinks people give a shit about how old he is or whatever. Who does he think he is, House? LOLRIOT:D But anyway, yeah, this gnostic/agnostic theist/theist thing is clearly atheist propaganda. As far as I'm concerned, it's just slang.
@akouleze Until recently, I used to be an anti-theist above everything else but after meeting up with gnostic "nazi" atheists like @deweytruxx and @thebattle4lotion over here, I've decided that I'm an "anti-gnostic" as well. If anything, "gnostic,atheism" is even stupider than theism and even when atheists call themselves "agnostic,atheists", they are still validating "gnostic, atheism" by automatically implying that such a thing even has a right to exist with their chosen title. It's madness.
Atheism is a religion or a cult all in it's own. They want to be the dominant political force instead of right-wing Christians. I'd rather live in a society with hard working Christians than cowardly drug using leftist Atheists.
The only dialogue needed between Christians and Atheists is this "Atheists, mind your own damn business, if you want to live in a land with no God, go to North Korea".
@thebattle4everything As for my hypothetical scenario of a God, if you would reject my assertion based “solely on the fact that it is intentionally irresolvable and there is absolutely ZERO evidence to back up my claim” then it really shows how stupid you are. Remember, I’m the Agnostic who believes that the answer to God(s) existence or nonexistence is unknowable. You’re the Atheist who must explain why such scenario is impossible or else how can you be certain that there is no God(s)? End.
@thebattle4everything Atheists like to think that they use science to understand life, but they are no different than Theists since both of these groups have taken a leap of faith for coming to their conclusion. Agnostics on the other hand can back up their claim that providing proof that God(s) exist or doesn’t exist is impossible. While this does not solve the answer, it is nonetheless the only true answer we have. Picking an answer to be yes or no to God without providing proof is stupid!
@thebattle4everything It’s not about what you believe to be true as your personal beliefs are irrelevant. Instead it is about what you can prove to be true and the way I see it is that neither Theists or Atheists can provide proof for their claim which is the reason to be Agnostic. Not Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist just Agnostic. It is irresponsible for Atheists to simply believe that there is not a God(s) simply because Theists have failed to provide one. Such argument is a fallacy.
@thebattle4everything When debating the issues about God(s), I would think that most people would be looking for the truth so I don’t see why people feel the need to state their personal beliefs. When debating, knowledge-based arguments are always superior to faith-based arguments. If you don’t know if God(s) exist, then how can you believe that God(s) doesn’t exist?
@thebattle4everything As an agnostic I believe that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is unknowable and that this is the closest to the absolute truth we humans will get on the issue of God(s) before crossing the line into faith and assumptions where things start to break down. Therefore, I live my life in the here and now and don’t make claims I can’t test scientifically. So I don’t participate in theisms or atheisms’ doctrines. You know, it's ok to say at times we don't have the answer.
@thebattle4everything Simply because you see flaws with some theism beliefs like Christianity doesn’t mean that all theism beliefs are wrong. For example, I’ll make up one right now. How would you argue the following. What if God(s) created humans without the ability to understand the origin of life. The first assumption we make as humans is that we have what it takes to understand life. What if that is not the case. You don't know and wouldn't be able to test this theory.
@thebattle4everything Since you are obviously an “Agnostic Atheist”, why not be an “Agnostic Theist”, or Agnostic by itself, or a Theist by itself, or an Atheist by itself? My point is that you don’t really know why you’re not any of these other categories because you don’t know how to rationalize your thinking. You simply picked Agnostic Atheist from your gut feeling. It’s something you should think about. I’m asking a serious question even though I come off to be very blunt.
@thebattle4everything I stand correct. People who label themselves as “Agnostic Atheist” or “Agnostic Theist” are confused and don’t know why they believe what they believe. A claim is a claim no matter if it’s a faith-based claim or knowledge-based claim you still need to back it up. Either you “know for sure” something is or you “have a gut feeling” that something is. If Agnosticism is about knowledge and Atheism/Theism is about faith, the 2 combine don’t go together.
@thebattle4everything You're not a free thinker, you're a bandwagon jumper who doesn't have a single original thought in his useless skull. You should probably just kill yourself so you can free up some space in your mother's house. drop me a line if you're ever in the 305 area you pasty little bitch.
@the PretentiousTROLL Every source in the world is always biased you worthless jackass because humanity is biased. Here's a thought, you must be some kind of rich big shot right? And I'm sure you're not just running your mouth off because you feel safe behind your computer right? Why don't you come down to South Fl in your private jet sometime and call me some names in person punk? I'm SERIOUS. Drop me an e-mail when you get down here and we'll decide where to meet up.
@thekeyboardwarrior If you hadn't just glanced over WTF I fucking said, you'd of realized that I NEVER said agnostic atheism was "bunk" or invalid, I only mentioned that since gnostic atheism IS BS, that there is no use for the word agnostic atheist because all atheists are agnostic atheists since it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW there is absolutely no Gods or higher powers of anykind whatsoever. Your "huge" vocabulary can't hide the fact that you have no home training.
@theVIRGIN4EVER And yet that "dumbass" website was kind enough to include a bunch of dictionary references that prove both eytomology and definition of atheism is one who believes there'es no deity. Worthless fool. You try so hard to split atheism up into all these different religious sects but I guess you probably don't understand why people consider it a religion? Maybe we should start having episcopal & baptists atheists? Be careful or Rev. Dawkins and Bishop Hitchens will excommunicate you.
@thebattle4everything It's still not too late to change your tone and apologize for your petty name calling so we can get back to having a civil discussion. I missed the part about you saying gnostic atheism is a contradiction and if you really did say that, my bad. But if you agree that gnostic,atheism is an invalid position, than what's the point of agnostic,atheism? None. It's a useless word. That's why I brought it up.
@thebattle4everything Okay you need to calm down right now. I think we can both agree you wouldn't be displaying this disrespectful attitude towards me if this was a face to face but if I'm wrong, I'd be more than happy to see you come to my state so we can meet up some time and we can see if you still have the same attitude in person. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and if you're any where near as intelligent as you claim, you should be able to describe your position without them.
@thebattle4everything There's nothing wrong with getting your definitions from dictionaries. That's what dictionaries are for. To put it quite simply, you are wrong. In the future, please avoid giving people orders. The dictionary has a wonderful word that would of fit your request nicely. Did you spot it in the fourth sentence of this reply? Just in case you didn't, the word is called "please".
@thebattle4everything So if all atheists are agnostic atheists, how do we seperate those who think there's no gods from those who have no opinion and only reject gnosticism? How about we call one group atheists and the other group agnostics? How about instead of trying to pull a fast one, we just leave the original definitions alone and use the term NONTHEIST to describe everybody who isn't a theist? In conclusion, gnostic,atheism is bullshit. Google it. Research it. Start with a dictionary.
@thebattle4everything In fact gnostic atheism is actually an even less intellectualy sound position then theism because while theists claim to be getting their factual knowledge from gods, gnostic,atheists don't have any gods they can claim to get their factual knowledge from so unless they can demonstrate omniscience, gnostic atheism is a myth. So yes, the terms do contradict and since gnostic atheism is impossible, the term agnostic atheist is useless because it goes without saying.
@thebattle4everything Merriam-Webster gnosticism: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-christian and early christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis. The Free Dictionary "gnostic: of, relating to, or posessing knowledge, esp esoteric spiritual knowledge. Bottom line: To KNOW there's no gods requires an omniscience that humans don't have. Therefore, gnostic atheism=contradiction.
@thebattle4everything Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same and Atheists need to stop hijacking the agnostic definition. An agnostic doesn't believe that anyone can prove the existence or nonexistence of God. They essentially don't take any sides as a result which is different from Atheism. As your definition of an Atheist is "NOT BELIEVING IN GOD". An "agnostic atheist" is an oxymoron. People who label themselves this don't really know what to believe and are confused!
@akouleze And Gnostic atheist is an even bigger oxymoron so since gnostic atheists can't exist, the word agnostic atheist is that much more USELESS. For the longest time atheist meant "one who believed there was no God" and rightfully so considering it was derived from the Greek word "atheos" which literally meant "without god". I'm so sick of atheists attacking me even in the middle of me actually doing their jobs for them and debating with theists!
@incomprehensible14 I know how you feel. As an Agnostic (period with nothing attached), I think people who label themselves as "Agnostic Atheist" or "Agnostic Theist" or anything else that is combined don't really know what to believe and certainly can't rationalize their thinking. They made their choice to believe in whatever because of "gut feeling" and in the end it is no different than the way Theists and Atheists chose to believe in a God(s) or no God(s). I would like to see more proof.
@akouleze Indeed. Gnostic atheism is even stupider than theism and shouldn't even be recognized as a real term. Agnostic theism is a contradiction in terms because you CAN NOT be theist and reject gnosticism AKA (esoteric spiritual knowledge) so that shouldn't be recognized either. So both terms are pointless Which means the original/REAL definition of agnosticism and atheism are spot on. evilbibleDOTcom has an excellent article if you ever need help backing up our argument.
@akouleze The idiots who call themselves agnostic because they're not sure if Jesus or Zeus is real are just as bad! All theism revolves around gnostic claims so being agnostic automatically means that while we don't have an opinion on God(s) in a deistic sense, we still don't believe in Jesus, Allah etc. If anybody ever gives you beef about being agnostic, be sure to direct them to evilbibleDOTcom and tell them to click on "definition of atheism".
@akouleze I'm so sick of some of these morons claiming we're cowards or bad people just because we don't have an opinion on the one thing that we humans have the least right to have an opinion about. Not having an opinion on Gods in a deistic sense doesn't make us cowards anymore than not having an opinion on the who the greatest Quidditch player is. In fact it would actually make more sense to judge us harshly on not having an opinion on Earthly things we can actually learn about.
Atheists are merely saying that no credible evidence has been put forward to hold a belief in a god. Atheists are not responsible for an infinite number of possibilities. I have yet to meet an agnostic that wasn't either an atheist or a Deist in disguise.
ask an agnostic if they believe there is a god. they will say "it is unknowable and cannot be proven" yes, i wasn't asking if it could be proved. that's stating the obvious. i asked DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD? most likely they will say no. and that makes them an atheist. nobody knows what happens when you die. but everybody has an opinion or at least an educated guess as to what happens
@TheNOSTALGICDECAY Good for you, you pressure people into a split decision answer!!! Awesome!!! I think i remember a priest doing the same thing to my Sunday school class. Luckily i didnt stick around for the "fun" stuff. Lame bro. Agnostic people are right, leave them alone. Nobody know's that all they're saying. Quit making it a yes or no question loser, Atheist/Theist you're all the same.
@TheNOSTALGICDECAY Ask an agnostic if they believe there is a god, they'll prolly say something along the lines of "I don't know."
Ask a typical atheist if they believe there is a god, they'll say, no.
These answers are one and the same -.-, in both cases it was a factor of belief. In which even if you answer IDK to the belief question, it's still going to be taken as a no, you don't believe.
Neither of these are assertions/claims. So in both cases, I would say the person is a fucking atheist.
@Microtardz I think you are right. They are the same if one is thinking in a logical way. If there is no evidence for god(s) then one cannot accept there is a god until there is proof.
@tooltime9901 An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid - Carl Sagan
I disbelieve in any deity just as equally as I disbelieve in any mystical characters, such as the unicorn, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, ect. Why be on the fence about something that has no evidence of existing? I just find that fucking idiotic.
2. The other reason I do so is for noticing the mannerisms of this group of atheists. I see ridiculing, self-righteous attitudes about being right, taunting, and a general attitude of intolerance. A type of behavior used by other reasonable atheists to displays flaws in religions. It is a hypocritical method and it does reflect badly on the atheist group in general. Because the term atheist is so ambuious, there is no escape from that. The term needs to be split to reflect diffrences.
1. The question about why argue against atheism is a good one and you are correct that it is vain in terms of conversion, unless said atheist was a "closet theist". I do argue because of the ambuity of the term atheist. Most if not all will hide behind a position of negative-atheism in that there is only doubt and no assertion, but quite a number will go about asserting until they have the spotlight put on them. In that, the actions are very much opposed to the claim.
The person that coined and defined the term "Agnostic" was T.H. Huxley. He coined the term because he didn't want to be considered either an atheists, or a theist. People trying to rewrite the definition are just playing semantics. And it does matter who coined the term if that person did so based on a particular definition. It is as simple as it has always been. Belief in a deity = theist. No belief in a deity = atheist. May or may not be a deity = agnostic. Yes, it IS that simple.
I don't know the ultimate nature of reality, hence neither do I God, and theist argument are poor in quality, not clear, not concise not well-formed; thus I am agnostic on the question of God and atheist in the disbelief of theist argument.
Huxley coined the term "Agnostic", so that gives HIM the privilege of assigning meaning.
Apparently Richard Dawkins doesn't think there are enough Atheist, so using some tricky propaganda and semantics, he's fooled some ignorant Agnostics into his camp. Stop being stupid! This is Atheist evangelism, Dawkins real thoughts about Agnosticism "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."
Well FU Dawkins! Atheism is just another faith based Atheist dogmatism!
Huxley coined the term "Agnostic", so that gives HIM the privilege of assigning meaning.
Apparently Richard Dawkins doesn't think there are enough Atheist, so using some tricky propaganda and semantics, he's fooled some ignorant Agnostics into his camp. Stop being stupid! This is Atheist evangelism, Dawkins real thoughts about Agnosticism "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."
Well FU Dawkins! Atheism is just another faith based Atheist dogmatism!
Being agnostic means you don't think we can be certain of god's existence. After becoming agnostic, you still have to choose between theist and atheist. you believe there is enough evidence for a god, or you think there is no god. I am agnostic, because i can't say that i know if there is a god for sure or not, but I am also an atheist because i don't see any reason to believe in god.
I am athiest but I have told a christian I don't know if there is a god just to hold down on a fuss. Christians wil back you in a corner and make you get very mad to make you look bad so I just say I don't know. Look at this if there is a God then why don't God care about us? Starving, sick, Bad people,and a govenment that don't care why does God allow this? Simple there is no God.
Changing the label is a political maneuver. There is a popular conception that agnostics are 'just not sure'. Being an atheist is seen as a stronger position against theism than being an agnostic. Therefore if there are more agnostics and less atheists, the theist voice will be stronger by comparison.
I guess rather you have "brain problems" because of too religious evangelistic "education" or surroundings, messed about by fucked up religious morons in the USA.
I am even not a Catholic + grew up irreligiously.
I was never member of ANY church.
You should reflect why nobody wants to visit with your channel: You are boring + look for silly quareling everywhere.
A born dogmatic - spoilt by over-religious puritan U.S. "education".
Now my last sentence was faulty -i addressed you.But i think the channel owner is a smarter guy than you. So there was a secret wish inside my faulty statement, the wish i would have discussed with the channel woners. I acted a bit irrational in my last sentence, but explained you why. For SUCH concerns psycho-analysis gives mostly true definitions -nevertheless other explanations of psycho-analysis are humbug for me -in MY opinion!
@thebattle4everything:My reference to Catholic THEOLOGIANS was purely ironical+i know their faulty theology good enough+i din´t "argue" about them,i was satirizing them for ironic reasons.
On the other hand it is problematic to condemn other people ("the Catholics")as being all irrational.
Your lingual comprehension seems to have grave logical deficiencies.
"The Catholics"are not the Vatican,the inquisition was in the past+many Catholic members are less hypocrites than Calvinists/Methodists.
@thebattle4everything:There would be a difference if you gave an attributing meaning to"i don´t belive in any god"e.g. i don´t believe in any god that is almighty(good, bad wtf).
You trick yourself by trying to interprete too much into simple statements which have no fundament than themselves.
When someone says i don´t believe in any god this is practically the same as claiming that there is no god. It is both a subjective FELT statement BY HIMSELF + both are sentences which cannot be proved.
@thebattle4everything:There is NO difference between the two, what you try to do is semantical humbug+almost tautology, you are confusing semantics with etymology. Humans are often so "arrogant" not to check that they are talking about their uncertain feelings when trying to argue about provable+unprovable things.The theologians of all centuries made the same mistakes.Read some Bertrand Russell on the definition of language and the meaning of words,i don´t feel forced to share your feelings here
@thebattle4everything: Even theologians of the Catholic or Lutheran church admit that the existence or nonexistence of (a) god cannot be proved with rational logical arguments. And feelings (about both matters) can all deceive us - as we should have learned in our lifetimes.
Buddhism also REFUSES to give an answer if there is a final authority behind it all.
@thebattle4everything:No no,agnosticism can be applied for all different cases of unprovable things.And your first sentence -sorry- is logical nonsense.There is no difference between not believing in a god or claiming that there is none.Even if you say:I assume that there is no god you imply the nonexistence of a god.But if you say:I don´t know or have my doubts THAT there is a god, it is agnostic.
When you claim something which cannot be proved with rational arguments,then it´s"only"a feeling.
Theism and Atheism responds to what you BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE regarding the existence of any god, gods or deities.
Gnosticism and Agnosticism responds to what you KNOW or DO NOT KNOW regarding anything from the existence of big foot to ghosts to life on other planets, but most of the time it is usually done in regards to the existence of god, gods or deities.
To KNOW and to BELIEVE in something are two very different things.
Atheism does not equate to Agnosticism; though the terms are not mutually exclusive. It is evident agnosticism and atheism are not, one in the same; as theists can be agnostic. Clearly you wouldn't say those theist are atheists.
Atheism/Theism - refers to belief of Gods...
Agnosticism - Refers to knowledge of Gods...(the lack of)
Therefore, everyone must fit the description of an agnostic, as no one holds real knowledge of any God. Faith is not equal to knowledge...
so im gunna go out on a limb here and say that technically there is no such thing as atheism. the reason i say this is that people think atheism is the act of not believing in god, when in fact it is the belief in nothing. this in itself is a belief and thus a contradiction. to say that atheism is not believing in god would technically make Buddhism, Taoism, Quietism, and other Eastern religions also be considered as "atheism" for their lack in the belief of a god
@bryant9236 No it's not a believe in nothing, you could call it the rejection in the believe in god(s) you can still believe every other shit on the planet and be an atheist as long as you don't believe in god(s) and these eastern religions could be considered atheist because that's exactly what they are.
i think the reason christians want atheists to be agnostic instead is because A) they don't know wtf an agnostic is and B) if you think there is a god but don't believe in it (as the christian definition of agnostic goes), then you're less insulting to their faith. you're playing to their belief that people are atheist/agnostic in order to not be held accountable to God. not because you actually don't think there is one.
I think understanding terms is very important and a requirement of communication.
agnosticism relates to epistemology
atheism relates to Theology
There is a strong movement to change what has always been the meanings of these words . If atheism can be redefined to be a form of belief rather than the absence of belief then it would carry a burden of proof.
The word agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley to describe what is knowable. One can believe in god or not and be an agnostic
All beliefs (and non-beliefs) tend to be agnostic. For example, it would be more precise for me to say "I know I am human" than for me to say "I believe I am human". Similarly, the statement "I know there is a god (or, conversely, no god)" is more precisely rephrased as "I believe there is a god (or, conversely, no god)"
Theists and atheists are both agnostic. "Strong Atheists" or "Explicit Atheists" may choose to put strength in an explicit belief, but neither the atheist nor the theist know.
(A)Gnosticism is not a separate stance on a similar matter of discourse as that of (A)Theism. (A)Gnosticism pertains to the claim of knowledge or the lack of such, whereas (A)Theism pertains to the individuals belief in the deific, or lack of such.
With this in mind, the overwhelming majority of self-proclaimed "Agnostics" seem to be agnostic atheists who've grown up in an environment where being an atheist is considered negative, and thus want to stay away from that label.
Furthermore, those who tend to label themselves "agnostics" usually have a desire to appear as a third group, a neutral island between the both extremes, but at the same time, they tend to act as if any potential deity (except perhaps a deist one) does not exist. No prayers, no adherence to any commandments, no slight nod to graven images of any deity, no sacrifices, etc etc, no nothing: Without any real regard for the chance of an existing god, what are you if not an atheist?
@thebattle4everything christians believe that everyone knows that THEIR god exists, and knows that jesus is god. All that says otherwise is denying it. If someone believes in something that twisted, seriously now, how can you argue? These people believe babies are born as full fledged jesus worshipers.
You just piss me off. Sorry but you do. the burden of proof is on you. If I say I have a magic sandwhich then its on ME to show you this magic sandwhich. Not for you to prove it doesnt exist. and as you said if you have the truth its up to you. you cant say "prove nothing" but we can say "prove something"
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ag·nos·tic: –noun
1. 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.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Agnostics and Atheists ARE NOT THE SAME. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant idiot.
@tooltime9901:The constant reacting/responding to allegations of sophistic hypocrite trick players from Christian/Muslim ranks even leaves agnostics like me with the impression that atheists always feel the need to justify themselves.Why not just stop reacting to them?Then you would not give the impression to agnostics that Atheism MIGHT be a religion.And what is so awful or suspect with semantics?Semantics is a department of linguistics - not of religion.I can only"believe"when i trust someone.
@tooltime9901:In a scientific sense it is nonsense to"believe"in a flat earth or absolutely believe in life after death,either a nonexistence(flat earth)CAN be proved OR is a case of only assuming.If i have manic ideas then i can also assume that doomsday will be in 2012(as many do)but i will be rather disgraced if it does not happen
Define the word atheist then you got a solution: If someone says a "god" cannot exist - then it is a feeling, if you say i´m not sure if, it is logically correct.
@tooltime9901:Once again: It depends how YOU define a word that is used by you for your issues/matters. If you always leave the interpretative authority to your opponents then it should not surprise you if they constantly repeat what you refuse. I often experience this here in video discussions: Hypocrite bigots - who often only act AS IF they were bigots - because they want to appear like the"funniest" smart-asses on earth or in the matrix - are persons with whom no real discussion is possible.
I would also refuse the conception that "belief in" parents in necessary. Trust is a better word.
The word belief/believe (Glauben/glauben) has such an inflation-like use in the German language that it is almost comletely devaluated. Germans tend to say: I believe the weather will be fine tomorrow, even if they already most certainly know it - by the weather forecast. To "believe" something, which is very certain to come true, is logical nonsense.
@rutybear "Agnostics and Atheists ARE NOT THE SAME. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant idiot."
Nobody claims the words mean the same thing. The questions are whether people who regard agnosticism as a third option regarding *belief* in binary propositions are confusing belief and knowledge and whether the word agnostic is better understood as a modifier that says something about the justification you feel you have for your beliefs in this situation.
@rutybear That is, "I don't believe God exists(=I act as if no gods exist=I am an atheist) *because* [insert your favorite definition of agnostic]. People who call themselves agnostics are almost always practical atheists though, and they use the word explicitly to distance themselves from a theism they feel is unsupported, but are afraid to state that they think claims about gods are insane. Anyway, in practice agnostic is near meaningless as a noun as it doesn't exclude any type of belief.
@rutybear The more modern approached by using agnostic as a qualifier to theist and atheist on the other hand does have immense clarifying value about what you actually believe and why. In a reality where no philosophy can defeat skepticism with certainty, stating that you believe X to be unknowable is simply comical, entirely uninformative, and necessarily inconsistent with your actual beliefs about binary propositions. If you act as if you know you're being a hypocrite claiming you don't
@rutybear An atheist is someone who rejects/denies the theist claim 100%, for any reason. The agnostic doesn’t know or doesn’t care. In every true/false question there are three options true, false and don’t know. They are all distinct and mutually exclusive of one another. I am an atheist. I reject the theist claim 100% because I know god don’t exist. I know god don’t exist for the same reason I know Sponge Bob don’t exist. They are both cartoons.
@rutybear You are correct. Atheist and agnostics are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Furthermore the idea that atheist and theist is about belief is completely false. The word belief should not even be used in the same sentence with theist or atheist. The theist doesn't believe there is a god. The theist claim is that god exists. The theist makes this claim based on the knowledge/information they received from a book or other religious teachings. Their belief is in their book, not their god.
@rutybear I agree with you. Anybody who doesn't should go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "definition of atheism". The atheists are trying to redefine the word atheism to include babies and cattle instead of just using the word nontheist to describe us all. When it comes to the word agnostic they always want to skip past it's English history and go straight to Greek origin but they NEVER want to mention the fact that the word atheist comes from the word Greek word atheos which = "without God".
some one please correct me if im wrong, but Atheists say when you die, your existence is over.But I have herd scientist say that energy cant be created or destroyed,only transformed and that the same energy that exsisted during the big bang is the same energy that the universe is made of today.if this is true then your soul or energy does continue, maybe even recycled in unlimited possibilities. Destiny doesnt have to be Heaven or Hell, but it doesnt have to be the grave either.
goldenboyNJ 3 weeks ago
I am agnostic and I kind of agree. This is too much about semantics and proofs. The reson why I can not call me atheist is because I have never worried about the proof prespective, but it is valid to postpone your belief of an unproven claim.
Another thing about being agnostic, that does not mean you believe any more than you disbelieve.
It has never been problem for me to argue because I am simply a humanism and it does not matter if god exist or not. I believe in the good > bad in man.
steverock85 1 month ago
@steverock85 Agnosticism is kind of a cop out or a way to divert the negative attention if you tack on that label when you really think there cannot be a god. To those that aren't sure. It doesn't matter. Most people think atheists are pretty confident there is no god. We can't change how people interpret words.
RuinSonic 3 weeks ago
@RuinSonic - Being unsure isn't a cop out, it is the most logical answer.
If the question is, do you believe aliens exist elsewhere in the universe?
1. Yes, they do exist.
2. No, they do not exist.
3. Unsure
In my opinion anyone saying either 1 or 2 with 100% certainty is an idiot, but it is perfectly acceptable to be unsure, or unsure but lean toward either 1 or 2.
crazywaffleking 3 weeks ago
@crazywaffleking So where does agnosticism end? Is it equally probable the Muslim God exists? You can't pretend like atheism has a burden of proof yet saying it's pretty much a 50/50 doesn't.
RuinSonic 3 weeks ago
@crazywaffleking
Yes, but regarding theism, the situation is different:
1. Theists say "There is a god (and it is my god)!"
2. Atheists say "We don't believe you"
2.1.. Anti-theists say "There is no god!"
...
So atheists are not "unsure", we simply don't accept the claims for gods, without necessarily denying the potential existence of god(s). Anti-theism is a private case of atheism.
grozde 3 weeks ago
I have been getting the same exact debate tactic from some guy that messaged me saying that my use of the word atheism is wrong, which it is not. But I have no idea what he hopes to gain. He keeps saying that atheism is a claim and its not. So I came to the same conclusion you did, so what does it matter what I call myself. Regardless I still have no reason to convert to a religion as there is no evidence that a god even exists. Even if he wins, nothing changes other than a word.
thesparitan 2 months ago in playlist More videos from tooltime9901
I think it's just shit picking
kingboss9000 3 months ago
@kingboss9000 agreed
thesparitan 2 months ago in playlist More videos from tooltime9901
The problem is, that when you actively believe or disbelieve, consciously or not your'e making a claim based on lack of knowledge which is an ignorant claim based on ignorance itself, which make both sides just as responsible for the burden of proof.
Consequently, "Agnosticism" makes no claims and remains open (in some cases) to the same, therefore the burden of proof does not apply. So in a way, it's more than just a semantics battle. It's about who doesn't have the burden of proof.
ZeerosFate 3 months ago
@ZeerosFate
It's still semantics because you are arguing atheism is the assertion that god doesn't exist, whereas just about everyone else would argue that it is the lack of conviction in the religious claim that it does.
By the average "agnostics" logic, not believing in sentient unicorns controlling humanity from the shadows constitutes a zealous belief that the very universe bars the very possibility of said beings and that all disbelievers spend their lives arguing such.
This is just BS.
ogith 2 months ago
@ogith By your definition, an Atheist doesn't believe in god, but doesn't necessarily disbelieve. In other words, there's no opinion either way. So why even entertain the concept of belief in the first place if there's no commitment to it or its negation? If the atheist/theist were to make the assertion (disbelief/belief), they'd be committing to a conclusion without evidence (arguing from ignorance) or with evidence (no need for belief when you got the facts) (cont)
ZeerosFate 2 months ago
@ZeerosFate
I'll cut you short right there and say I've no interest in further discussion of this whole subject.
Just recently had a needlessly extended session of debate regarding it that pretty much solidified that there are far too many ideological and dogmatic forces involved for any true talk to be had about the subject. Too many agnostics in circulation with bad experiences with (a)theists/whatever and will do all manner of mental gymnastics to arbitrarily distance themselves from either
ogith 2 months ago
@ZeerosFate Then how could the concept of belief/disbelief be rational in the first place? There's knowledge with a certain degree of certainty or no knowledge. Opinions (or belief, however you see it) are a man made concept that fill gaps that knowledge can't. It's nothing more than that, and we need to outgrow it and phase it out of the spoken language. It's divisive, not fact-driven, and more damaging than irrelevant.
ZeerosFate 2 months ago
@ZeerosFate
I'll just say that even the likes of Huxley worked from the presupposition that the atheist standpoint was necessarily one of gnostic rejection of the very concept of a god rather than a lack of conviction in the claims offered by religious sources, and that accepting any base possibility of the divine does not negate the fact that you live/act atheist in every regard when it comes to god(s)
No prayer, no sacrifices, no belief that not following these could raise divine ire, etcetc
ogith 2 months ago
@ogith I thank you for addressing my initial post and sorry that your last discussion ended up nowhere. It's tough enough to find someone that understands that being proven wrong is actually a concept to be celebrated, because accepting it oneself is no less rewarding. In regards to my personal bias against the atheist/theist label, I'm fully aware of it, but also aware of my bias' absence of merit in regards to what the truth really is.
Cheers.
ZeerosFate 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thebattle4everything GET THE FUCK OFF OF THIS THREAD RIGHT NOW!
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything “As far as me not saying anything else, I'll take you up on that invite” Obviously you didn’t since you felt the need to comment one last time. Maybe this will be the time you’ll keep your word, but I doubt it. Just like your arguments, you can’t keep to your word. BTW, you didn’t pass my challenge dumb ass! Your responses were funny though. Huh, moon...keyboard…idea. You deserve an award for being so stupid.
akouleze 4 months ago
@akouleze I can divide people up into being with either "team Jacob" or "team (insert name of werewolf from Twilight here)" and come up with shit to explain why you have to be one or the other but that doesn't mean everybody on the planet instantly has to agree with that system even if I do manage to trick some people into buying in to it. Just putting deists in the same catagory as theists is quite problamatic. There's a reason why deists are called deists and theists are called theists.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything An Atheist is going to say any minute now we don’t make any claims! Watch and see. They are so predictable just like a Christian with his Bible. Be Forewarned! Arguing with an Atheist is like picking up a dictionary and reciting every definition of every word times 100 since they are cowards to admit when they are wrong!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything People remember this. Theists argue with their Bible. Atheists argue about definitions. Neither side are focusing on the proof except for Agnostics! Beware! Atheists and some Theists are trying to hijack the real definition of Agnosticism (which is we don’t know either way) by trying to combine the two and saying that people can be both. NOT POSSIBLE! They are simply trying to distance themselves from having to provide proof for their claims!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything In the end, people should not be fooled by Atheists or Theists as they both use the same methodology to come to their conclusion which is faith! Theists have no problems admitting this, but again they don’t understand the implications of what they are saying. Atheists are a bit smarter, but still are wrong to automatically take the opposite side of the issue simply because no proof has been presented yet.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything All Atheists upon FIRST MEETING them make statements like “God does not exist.” or “He is not real” or “there is no God”. It’s not until you are in a real debate with an Atheist that he/she starts to backtrack and wants to start questioning the definition of every single word in the dictionary just to drive you crazy so that you would give up! It is as if you forgot your English vocabulary when you debate an Atheist even for simple everyday words.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything My flat earth argument shows many similarities with Atheism and Theism. Both sides have taken an opposite stance. Both sides have reasons why they believe their stance. Neither side had proof for their stance. If you don’t see the logical argument here then you are simply choosing to lie to yourself just like Theists which is what you’ve been doing all this time! Furthermore, “skepticism and dogmatically sticking to old beliefs” are both nonetheless beliefs!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything “mathematics proved the earth was round, not technology” You can call it whatever you want as I’m not going to debate the definitions of every word in the dictionary with you, but the point remains that before the earth was proven to be a sphere (BTW, it’s not round since you like to be so technical), mankind started to formulate beliefs without proof. The majority believed the earth was flat because it looked like it and because there was no evidence showing otherwise.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything You think you tricked me, but in the end you failed. If all you have to show are deceptive tricks in order to make a point than you are beyond stupid. Remember, this is not a test of my knowledge about Physics, but instead it is a test about formulating argument fallacies! Something is either knowledge or a belief and a belief becomes knowledge once proven. Either we KNOW gravity is not a force or we BELIEVE gravity is not a force. Dumb ass!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything You first write to me “We believe that gravity is a force that exists because of our knowledge of physics.” Then you write “Einstein argued that GRAVITY IS NOT A FORCE.” If gravity is not a force then we don’t need to believe that gravity is a force! My argument wasn’t wrong, simply because my knowledge of physics is limited doesn’t mean anything. It just shows that I don’t know physics, but that doesn’t mean that physicists don’t know it’s a fact or belief! Stupid!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Could not go back to old username, slow17motion (forever lost to the youtube gods)...
slowSEVENTEENmotion 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@slowSEVENTEENmotion TAKE YOUR SOCK PUPPET ACCOUNT AND GET OFF OF THIS THREAD RIGHT NOW. DO AS I COMMAND VIRGIN.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything This is the brand new me (slowSEVENTEENmotion).
slowSEVENTEENmotion 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Oh, and by the way, it was a pleasure spanking you. I know you must be sad that we just destroyed and completely decimated your "argument" but I'm sure you'll recover eventually. Good bye Mr nazi atheist troll.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Idiots like you only help to chase away people from atheism by deploying adhominems everytime they lose an argument. So like I said before, the original/REAL definition of atheism is a positive claim that there are no gods. It's really pretty simple and shouldn't require years of research like you suggest. Gnostic atheism is fallacious so by default, agnostic atheism is a needless term. So-called gnostic atheism IS A CULT AND IS A RELIGION. Now go suck Rev.Dawkins dick:)
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Calm down Mr. Troll LOL:D Gay or not, you're probably still a virgin. I mean where would you even find the time to hook up with anybody when you're just a last word troll who plays internet bully for like 19 hours a day? At any rate, I can't say I bothered to read any of that crap you must of put so much effort into coming up with because you have already proven that you have nothing intelligent to say. You have no restraint, no discipline, and no balls.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything You probably shouldn’t say anything further because you keep on misinterpretating every single word on purpose and bouncing all over the place since you can’t provide any serious logical counter argument. You can think that Atheism is not a belief, but that doesn’t change the fact that Atheism is a belief like Theism since the lack of belief in God (aka there is no god) has not been proven to be common knowledge like gravity or the earth being a sphere.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Why should someone provide evidence for lacking a belief anyways? It can be reckless. Let’s go back in history when most people didn’t believe the earth was a sphere, but instead flat. At the time we didn’t have the technology to prove or disprove the earth was a sphere so most people decided it was flat. Not only was everyone wrong, but people on opposite sides were persecuted (like Atheists and Christians today). If only people believed what they can prove!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything No wonder you don’t make any sense since you don’t know how to use or define belief, knowledge, oxymoron etc. Finally, “You've proven to be a constant goalpost shifter as well” Huh? You make a statement but don’t back it up??? Once again, that really shows that you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say. Maybe you need to take a time out and learn the basic vocabulary of words like belief and knowledge before you make a bigger fool of yourself!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything “knowledge is grounded in belief and vice versa. They are complimentary things. We believe that gravity is a force that exists because of our knowledge of physics.” Let me rephrase for you that last sentence. We KNOW that gravity is a force that exists because of our KNOWLEDGE (BEEN PROVEN) of physics. You can use Theists “believe” in God or Atheists don’t “believe” in God, but we “know” that gravity is a force. You’re beyond stupid.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything “your theory about belief being replaced by knowledge is ridiculous, because as humans we are often utterly incapable of distinguishing between the two.” No, you’re the only incapable person of distinguishing between the two since you don’t know that belief is knowledge without proof or knowledge is belief with proof. But of course, I’m not surprised to hear this from you since you really don’t know any of your vocabulary.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything I’ve proven my point. You can’t answer my question. You tried to read too much into my challenge that you came up with silly words like “moon” and “keyboard” and could not even give me one full sentence because you know that nothing falls outside a belief or knowledge. Instead of admitting it, you tried to be a smart ass with your responses which shows that you have nothing intelligent to say. You can’t even focus on one specific argument without jumping around.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything PART 3 of 3 If you think I’m wrong then answer the one question that all you Atheists are avoiding and stop being a coward and dodging my questions! Can you give me one example of something in the universe that doesn’t fall in either a belief or knowledge category? If you successfully do this, I would be glad to rethink my stance as being an Agnostic BY ITSELF. Do not dodge my question like you’ve been doing before! Do not try to change the subject either!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything PART 2 of 3 Also, Everything starts as a belief and is replaced to become knowledge when proof is presented which is the reason why you can’t combine a belief with knowledge on the same thing. Therefore, the term “Agnostic Atheist” is an oxymoron. Also, since Theism and Atheism haven’t been proven to be right yet, they are both considered beliefs and NOT knowledge…continue reading to PART 3of 3.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything PART 1 of 3 “many people insist on categorizing atheism as a belief--when it is not a belief at all.” Sorry, Atheism is a belief. Here’s why. Everything in the universe falls into 2 categories. 1) Belief 2) Knowledge. You either know something is true which requires proof to back it up or you think (AKA believe) something is true which doesn’t require any proof. Belief and knowledge can’t be combined for the same thing…continue reading to PART 2 of 3.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything There are millions of things mankind doesn’t know. Some things we may eventually have an answer to because it may require advance technology to get the answer. Other things we may never know the answer no matter how much time goes by. Am I suppose to automatically say that because we don’t know now it is a negative (Atheism) or do the opposite which would be positive (Theism)??? No. The Truth is to leave at I don’t know (Agnosticism) until someone can prove or disprove.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything “Your argument seems to be of the position that one must believe in everything that they lack belief in” No! As an Agnostic once again, I do NOT believe OR disbelieve in God(s). Instead, I KNOW that the existence and nonexistence of God is unknowable just like millions of other things mankind doesn’t know. I live my life with the things I KNOW (FACT) and IGNORE beliefs until someone turns a Belief into Knowledge which would require proof.
akouleze 4 months ago
@akouleze Man, @thebattle4everything sure is one stubborn pig headed troll... maybe he's uptight because he's still a virgin? I think he needs some dick lol:)
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Who's joking? You people are nazis. That's why nobody wants to be affiliated with your gnostic cult. Since you were the first one to resort to employing logical fallacies, the inference is that you did so because you could no longer defend your position intelligently and therefore you have lost the argument. There's no need to be embarrased. Just because you're a forty something year old virgin who still gets breast fed doesn't mean you can't change.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Ad hominem is always a logical fallacy and this was no exception. To say other wise is special pleading. If you literally are calling me an idiot, then you are a liar since I've already demonstrated an IQ of over 26 and the fact that you don't like me for not agreeing with you won't change that. Even the most immature of children can make their points without resorting to needless insults so I'll assume that you must be emotionally underdeveloped.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything “Atheists don't need to provide PROOF for having a lack of belief.” I stand correct. Atheists and Theists take the same approach to come to their conclusion which is using faith. When you make a claim you need to back it up! You may think that Atheism doesn’t make a claim, but you would be wrong. When Atheists say “I disbelieve (equals do not believe or lack of belief) in any God(s)” that is making a BIG claim. It doesn't matter if it's positive or negative claim! Done.
akouleze 4 months ago
@akouleze Can you believe what an angry troll this @thebattle4everything is? Even his screenname screams douchebag. He must be an insecure COWARD in person LOLRIOT! LOL and they wonder why so many people don't want to be associated with their kind LOL:D I didn't leave christianity just so I could join another cult. Hopefully, this troll will just do the right thing kill himself one day and make the world safer for decent people.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@akouleze LOL at how hard he tries to get us to agree to his definition just because his nazi atheist spiritual over lords told him so even though it's completely different from what most reputable dictionaries sayLOL:D I sure hope @thebattle4everything doesn't throw another temper tantrum because he keeps losing every argument.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything And finally eight, “If you would just watch Qualia Soup's "lack of belief" vid as I recommended, perhaps you would understand that saying "yes" or "no" to god/s are not our only options--and also that the term AGNOSTIC is not the "middle choice" because it says nothing about beliefs and only makes a claim to knowledge.” I’ve watched his videos, and I’m looking forward to debating him as he argues no differently than you.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Seven, “Personally, I find it absurd that you would give the same privileges to beliefs as you would scientific theory (especially as we increase our knowledge).” Simply because we’ve increased our knowledge about many things doesn’t mean that we’ve solved the proof of God(s) existence or nonexistence. Until then, Atheism and Theism are merely beliefs and not knowledge. Eight,..
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Six, “The fact that you give equal weight to theism and atheism makes your position seem untenable to me.” Untenable is the position of Agnosticism which is what I am and have been arguing all along from the beginning. Atheists and Theists want to argue that issues of God(s) are tenable when it is really untenable. The first question any person must ask themselves is can the answer of God be obtainable? If not, what's the point of going any further? If yes, proof? Seven,
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Five, “There are times when I will, beyond a shadow of a doubt, claim a specific god (like the Christian god) doesn't exist. However, there are countless varieties of gods, and I will respond to each accordingly by saying: "irresolvable" "no evidence" "self-refuting" etc.” If something is “irresolvable”, then why would you jump to the conclusion of being an Atheist and say that you lack the belief in God(s)? Six,…
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Four, “You are arguing that beliefs are shit, so agnosticism is the only logical way to go--I would be inclined to agree--except for the fact that ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF.” In number 2, you said to me that Atheism is “not a claim to knowledge”. Here you add by saying that Atheism is “not a belief”. So if Atheism is outside of knowledge and beliefs then what is left? Answer, nothing! You keep changing your definition which is why you’re an idiot! Five,…
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Three, “And, no, when discussing atheism and theism, personal beliefs are not irrelevant--beliefs are actually the entire point.” Beliefs are simply knowledge without proof. Therefore arguing with beliefs becomes irrelevant as the purpose of arguing is to gain knowledge. If Atheists can’t provide proof for their stance then they are no different then Theists as they are simply stating their beliefs. Four…
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Two, “as LACKING belief is DIFFERENT that believing there is no god/s. Atheism is NOT a claim to knowledge” Then what is the point of arguing if not for knowledge??? And if Atheism is not a claim to knowledge, then what is Atheism? Answer, a Belief as the opposite of knowledge is belief. Something moves from beliefs to knowledge when there is proof. Three,…
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything One, I’ve never said the following statement so stop putting words in my mouth. If you can’t argue without twisting my sentences then don’t argue at all. “The simple fact that you clumped theists and scientists together shows a lack of understanding on your part.” Two,…
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Of all the people I’ve debated about the issues of God, your arguments are the most nonsensical. I’m only going to respond to a few of your arguments as I can see that you don’t know how to argue. There is no point for me to argue with someone who make contradiction statements. So let’s get started here. One,…
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Remember, the bible is total bullshit so there's no reason not to commit suicide. I read that men are more successful at it than girls so you might have to make more than one attempt but I'm sure if you put your heart into it, you'll succeed. END OF STORY.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything You should be ashamed of yourself. At any rate, all of your words are complete rubbish, and your parents really should of had an abortion. You are a complete failure in life, you'll always be a virgin and the only reason you act tough online is to compensate for what a sad pathetic douchebag you are in reality.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything What's really too sad for words is that you are a nazi gnostic atheist who tries to cyber bully his bullshit onto other people even when all of the resources that matter (such as DICTIONARIES) disagree. You're not even enough of an adult to agree to disagree so you throw temper tantrums like a little girl who just had her first period and wasn't wearing a tampon.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything You want to talk about an "internet tough guy act"? I pride myself on carrying myself the EXACT SAME WAY ONLONE AS I DO IN REAL LIFE and I'm more than happy to prove this to you in person. You on the other hand are an immature jackass who actually goes so far as to "special plead" why his childish insults should be seen as anything other than ad hominem so that's not one, but two logical fallacies you're guilty of and what a coincidence that these tactics are theist faves.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@incomprehensible14 Thanks for sharing the article.
akouleze 4 months ago
@incomprehensible14 Yeah thebattle4everything is a fucking dumb ass who won't stop being a liar. He's so fucking stupid!
akouleze 4 months ago
@akouleze Not only that, @thebattle4lotion or whatever he calls himself is also jerk and a cowardly deluded narcissist with NO BALLS! He goes around starting shit with people online like it's cute and really thinks people give a shit about how old he is or whatever. Who does he think he is, House? LOLRIOT:D But anyway, yeah, this gnostic/agnostic theist/theist thing is clearly atheist propaganda. As far as I'm concerned, it's just slang.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@akouleze Until recently, I used to be an anti-theist above everything else but after meeting up with gnostic "nazi" atheists like @deweytruxx and @thebattle4lotion over here, I've decided that I'm an "anti-gnostic" as well. If anything, "gnostic,atheism" is even stupider than theism and even when atheists call themselves "agnostic,atheists", they are still validating "gnostic, atheism" by automatically implying that such a thing even has a right to exist with their chosen title. It's madness.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
Atheism is a religion or a cult all in it's own. They want to be the dominant political force instead of right-wing Christians. I'd rather live in a society with hard working Christians than cowardly drug using leftist Atheists.
The only dialogue needed between Christians and Atheists is this "Atheists, mind your own damn business, if you want to live in a land with no God, go to North Korea".
XmXFLUXmX2 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything As for my hypothetical scenario of a God, if you would reject my assertion based “solely on the fact that it is intentionally irresolvable and there is absolutely ZERO evidence to back up my claim” then it really shows how stupid you are. Remember, I’m the Agnostic who believes that the answer to God(s) existence or nonexistence is unknowable. You’re the Atheist who must explain why such scenario is impossible or else how can you be certain that there is no God(s)? End.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Atheists like to think that they use science to understand life, but they are no different than Theists since both of these groups have taken a leap of faith for coming to their conclusion. Agnostics on the other hand can back up their claim that providing proof that God(s) exist or doesn’t exist is impossible. While this does not solve the answer, it is nonetheless the only true answer we have. Picking an answer to be yes or no to God without providing proof is stupid!
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything It’s not about what you believe to be true as your personal beliefs are irrelevant. Instead it is about what you can prove to be true and the way I see it is that neither Theists or Atheists can provide proof for their claim which is the reason to be Agnostic. Not Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist just Agnostic. It is irresponsible for Atheists to simply believe that there is not a God(s) simply because Theists have failed to provide one. Such argument is a fallacy.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything When debating the issues about God(s), I would think that most people would be looking for the truth so I don’t see why people feel the need to state their personal beliefs. When debating, knowledge-based arguments are always superior to faith-based arguments. If you don’t know if God(s) exist, then how can you believe that God(s) doesn’t exist?
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything As an agnostic I believe that the existence or nonexistence of God(s) is unknowable and that this is the closest to the absolute truth we humans will get on the issue of God(s) before crossing the line into faith and assumptions where things start to break down. Therefore, I live my life in the here and now and don’t make claims I can’t test scientifically. So I don’t participate in theisms or atheisms’ doctrines. You know, it's ok to say at times we don't have the answer.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Simply because you see flaws with some theism beliefs like Christianity doesn’t mean that all theism beliefs are wrong. For example, I’ll make up one right now. How would you argue the following. What if God(s) created humans without the ability to understand the origin of life. The first assumption we make as humans is that we have what it takes to understand life. What if that is not the case. You don't know and wouldn't be able to test this theory.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Since you are obviously an “Agnostic Atheist”, why not be an “Agnostic Theist”, or Agnostic by itself, or a Theist by itself, or an Atheist by itself? My point is that you don’t really know why you’re not any of these other categories because you don’t know how to rationalize your thinking. You simply picked Agnostic Atheist from your gut feeling. It’s something you should think about. I’m asking a serious question even though I come off to be very blunt.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything I stand correct. People who label themselves as “Agnostic Atheist” or “Agnostic Theist” are confused and don’t know why they believe what they believe. A claim is a claim no matter if it’s a faith-based claim or knowledge-based claim you still need to back it up. Either you “know for sure” something is or you “have a gut feeling” that something is. If Agnosticism is about knowledge and Atheism/Theism is about faith, the 2 combine don’t go together.
akouleze 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything You're not a free thinker, you're a bandwagon jumper who doesn't have a single original thought in his useless skull. You should probably just kill yourself so you can free up some space in your mother's house. drop me a line if you're ever in the 305 area you pasty little bitch.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@the PretentiousTROLL Every source in the world is always biased you worthless jackass because humanity is biased. Here's a thought, you must be some kind of rich big shot right? And I'm sure you're not just running your mouth off because you feel safe behind your computer right? Why don't you come down to South Fl in your private jet sometime and call me some names in person punk? I'm SERIOUS. Drop me an e-mail when you get down here and we'll decide where to meet up.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thekeyboardwarrior If you hadn't just glanced over WTF I fucking said, you'd of realized that I NEVER said agnostic atheism was "bunk" or invalid, I only mentioned that since gnostic atheism IS BS, that there is no use for the word agnostic atheist because all atheists are agnostic atheists since it is IMPOSSIBLE to KNOW there is absolutely no Gods or higher powers of anykind whatsoever. Your "huge" vocabulary can't hide the fact that you have no home training.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@theVIRGIN4EVER And yet that "dumbass" website was kind enough to include a bunch of dictionary references that prove both eytomology and definition of atheism is one who believes there'es no deity. Worthless fool. You try so hard to split atheism up into all these different religious sects but I guess you probably don't understand why people consider it a religion? Maybe we should start having episcopal & baptists atheists? Be careful or Rev. Dawkins and Bishop Hitchens will excommunicate you.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything It's still not too late to change your tone and apologize for your petty name calling so we can get back to having a civil discussion. I missed the part about you saying gnostic atheism is a contradiction and if you really did say that, my bad. But if you agree that gnostic,atheism is an invalid position, than what's the point of agnostic,atheism? None. It's a useless word. That's why I brought it up.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Okay you need to calm down right now. I think we can both agree you wouldn't be displaying this disrespectful attitude towards me if this was a face to face but if I'm wrong, I'd be more than happy to see you come to my state so we can meet up some time and we can see if you still have the same attitude in person. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and if you're any where near as intelligent as you claim, you should be able to describe your position without them.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything There's nothing wrong with getting your definitions from dictionaries. That's what dictionaries are for. To put it quite simply, you are wrong. In the future, please avoid giving people orders. The dictionary has a wonderful word that would of fit your request nicely. Did you spot it in the fourth sentence of this reply? Just in case you didn't, the word is called "please".
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything So if all atheists are agnostic atheists, how do we seperate those who think there's no gods from those who have no opinion and only reject gnosticism? How about we call one group atheists and the other group agnostics? How about instead of trying to pull a fast one, we just leave the original definitions alone and use the term NONTHEIST to describe everybody who isn't a theist? In conclusion, gnostic,atheism is bullshit. Google it. Research it. Start with a dictionary.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything In fact gnostic atheism is actually an even less intellectualy sound position then theism because while theists claim to be getting their factual knowledge from gods, gnostic,atheists don't have any gods they can claim to get their factual knowledge from so unless they can demonstrate omniscience, gnostic atheism is a myth. So yes, the terms do contradict and since gnostic atheism is impossible, the term agnostic atheist is useless because it goes without saying.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Merriam-Webster gnosticism: the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-christian and early christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis. The Free Dictionary "gnostic: of, relating to, or posessing knowledge, esp esoteric spiritual knowledge. Bottom line: To KNOW there's no gods requires an omniscience that humans don't have. Therefore, gnostic atheism=contradiction.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Gnostic atheism is a contradiction in terms so the word agnostic atheist is useless because all atheists are agnostic atheists.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@thebattle4everything Atheism and Agnosticism are not the same and Atheists need to stop hijacking the agnostic definition. An agnostic doesn't believe that anyone can prove the existence or nonexistence of God. They essentially don't take any sides as a result which is different from Atheism. As your definition of an Atheist is "NOT BELIEVING IN GOD". An "agnostic atheist" is an oxymoron. People who label themselves this don't really know what to believe and are confused!
akouleze 4 months ago
@akouleze And Gnostic atheist is an even bigger oxymoron so since gnostic atheists can't exist, the word agnostic atheist is that much more USELESS. For the longest time atheist meant "one who believed there was no God" and rightfully so considering it was derived from the Greek word "atheos" which literally meant "without god". I'm so sick of atheists attacking me even in the middle of me actually doing their jobs for them and debating with theists!
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@incomprehensible14 I know how you feel. As an Agnostic (period with nothing attached), I think people who label themselves as "Agnostic Atheist" or "Agnostic Theist" or anything else that is combined don't really know what to believe and certainly can't rationalize their thinking. They made their choice to believe in whatever because of "gut feeling" and in the end it is no different than the way Theists and Atheists chose to believe in a God(s) or no God(s). I would like to see more proof.
akouleze 4 months ago
Comment removed
DieudonneSeal 4 months ago
@akouleze Indeed. Gnostic atheism is even stupider than theism and shouldn't even be recognized as a real term. Agnostic theism is a contradiction in terms because you CAN NOT be theist and reject gnosticism AKA (esoteric spiritual knowledge) so that shouldn't be recognized either. So both terms are pointless Which means the original/REAL definition of agnosticism and atheism are spot on. evilbibleDOTcom has an excellent article if you ever need help backing up our argument.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@akouleze Just go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "definition of atheism".
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@akouleze The idiots who call themselves agnostic because they're not sure if Jesus or Zeus is real are just as bad! All theism revolves around gnostic claims so being agnostic automatically means that while we don't have an opinion on God(s) in a deistic sense, we still don't believe in Jesus, Allah etc. If anybody ever gives you beef about being agnostic, be sure to direct them to evilbibleDOTcom and tell them to click on "definition of atheism".
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
@akouleze I'm so sick of some of these morons claiming we're cowards or bad people just because we don't have an opinion on the one thing that we humans have the least right to have an opinion about. Not having an opinion on Gods in a deistic sense doesn't make us cowards anymore than not having an opinion on the who the greatest Quidditch player is. In fact it would actually make more sense to judge us harshly on not having an opinion on Earthly things we can actually learn about.
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
Thank you. Some one finally said it. When will theists stop wasting time on the technicalities of social labels.
kennethherrick 4 months ago
Atheists are merely saying that no credible evidence has been put forward to hold a belief in a god. Atheists are not responsible for an infinite number of possibilities. I have yet to meet an agnostic that wasn't either an atheist or a Deist in disguise.
RationalOutlet 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have never heard of anyone who is an "gnostic atheist", pretty much all atheists are technically agnostic-atheists.
However the world is filled with gnostic theists, like Ray Comfort.
FrozenPetrolPie 5 months ago
Comment removed
FrozenPetrolPie 5 months ago
ask an agnostic if they believe there is a god. they will say "it is unknowable and cannot be proven" yes, i wasn't asking if it could be proved. that's stating the obvious. i asked DO YOU BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD? most likely they will say no. and that makes them an atheist. nobody knows what happens when you die. but everybody has an opinion or at least an educated guess as to what happens
TheNOSTALGICDECAY 6 months ago
@TheNOSTALGICDECAY Good for you, you pressure people into a split decision answer!!! Awesome!!! I think i remember a priest doing the same thing to my Sunday school class. Luckily i didnt stick around for the "fun" stuff. Lame bro. Agnostic people are right, leave them alone. Nobody know's that all they're saying. Quit making it a yes or no question loser, Atheist/Theist you're all the same.
dmera420 6 months ago
@TheNOSTALGICDECAY Ask an agnostic if they believe there is a god, they'll prolly say something along the lines of "I don't know."
Ask a typical atheist if they believe there is a god, they'll say, no.
These answers are one and the same -.-, in both cases it was a factor of belief. In which even if you answer IDK to the belief question, it's still going to be taken as a no, you don't believe.
Neither of these are assertions/claims. So in both cases, I would say the person is a fucking atheist.
Microtardz 5 months ago
@Microtardz I think you are right. They are the same if one is thinking in a logical way. If there is no evidence for god(s) then one cannot accept there is a god until there is proof.
peterb1968 5 months ago
@tooltime9901 An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no god. By some definitions atheism is very stupid - Carl Sagan
dmera420 7 months ago
I disbelieve in any deity just as equally as I disbelieve in any mystical characters, such as the unicorn, the tooth fairy, Santa Clause, ect. Why be on the fence about something that has no evidence of existing? I just find that fucking idiotic.
TearsOfWar1 7 months ago
2. The other reason I do so is for noticing the mannerisms of this group of atheists. I see ridiculing, self-righteous attitudes about being right, taunting, and a general attitude of intolerance. A type of behavior used by other reasonable atheists to displays flaws in religions. It is a hypocritical method and it does reflect badly on the atheist group in general. Because the term atheist is so ambuious, there is no escape from that. The term needs to be split to reflect diffrences.
smawshot 7 months ago
1. The question about why argue against atheism is a good one and you are correct that it is vain in terms of conversion, unless said atheist was a "closet theist". I do argue because of the ambuity of the term atheist. Most if not all will hide behind a position of negative-atheism in that there is only doubt and no assertion, but quite a number will go about asserting until they have the spotlight put on them. In that, the actions are very much opposed to the claim.
smawshot 7 months ago
The person that coined and defined the term "Agnostic" was T.H. Huxley. He coined the term because he didn't want to be considered either an atheists, or a theist. People trying to rewrite the definition are just playing semantics. And it does matter who coined the term if that person did so based on a particular definition. It is as simple as it has always been. Belief in a deity = theist. No belief in a deity = atheist. May or may not be a deity = agnostic. Yes, it IS that simple.
Lagomort 7 months ago
I don't know the ultimate nature of reality, hence neither do I God, and theist argument are poor in quality, not clear, not concise not well-formed; thus I am agnostic on the question of God and atheist in the disbelief of theist argument.
Pure rationality at work.
osheaad 7 months ago
Huxley coined the term "Agnostic", so that gives HIM the privilege of assigning meaning.
Apparently Richard Dawkins doesn't think there are enough Atheist, so using some tricky propaganda and semantics, he's fooled some ignorant Agnostics into his camp. Stop being stupid! This is Atheist evangelism, Dawkins real thoughts about Agnosticism "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."
Well FU Dawkins! Atheism is just another faith based Atheist dogmatism!
AMilitantAgnostic 7 months ago
@thebattle4everything
Huxley coined the term "Agnostic", so that gives HIM the privilege of assigning meaning.
Apparently Richard Dawkins doesn't think there are enough Atheist, so using some tricky propaganda and semantics, he's fooled some ignorant Agnostics into his camp. Stop being stupid! This is Atheist evangelism, Dawkins real thoughts about Agnosticism "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."
Well FU Dawkins! Atheism is just another faith based Atheist dogmatism!
AMilitantAgnostic 7 months ago
Being agnostic means you don't think we can be certain of god's existence. After becoming agnostic, you still have to choose between theist and atheist. you believe there is enough evidence for a god, or you think there is no god. I am agnostic, because i can't say that i know if there is a god for sure or not, but I am also an atheist because i don't see any reason to believe in god.
UnstableNinja 7 months ago
I am athiest but I have told a christian I don't know if there is a god just to hold down on a fuss. Christians wil back you in a corner and make you get very mad to make you look bad so I just say I don't know. Look at this if there is a God then why don't God care about us? Starving, sick, Bad people,and a govenment that don't care why does God allow this? Simple there is no God.
comedy101ful 7 months ago
Changing the label is a political maneuver. There is a popular conception that agnostics are 'just not sure'. Being an atheist is seen as a stronger position against theism than being an agnostic. Therefore if there are more agnostics and less atheists, the theist voice will be stronger by comparison.
This is why I believe theists use this tactic.
originosity 8 months ago
@thebattle4everything: None of your further comments will be read by me.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything:
I guess rather you have "brain problems" because of too religious evangelistic "education" or surroundings, messed about by fucked up religious morons in the USA.
I am even not a Catholic + grew up irreligiously.
I was never member of ANY church.
You should reflect why nobody wants to visit with your channel: You are boring + look for silly quareling everywhere.
A born dogmatic - spoilt by over-religious puritan U.S. "education".
I´m not your analyst.
FUCK OFF !
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything:
Now my last sentence was faulty -i addressed you.But i think the channel owner is a smarter guy than you. So there was a secret wish inside my faulty statement, the wish i would have discussed with the channel woners. I acted a bit irrational in my last sentence, but explained you why. For SUCH concerns psycho-analysis gives mostly true definitions -nevertheless other explanations of psycho-analysis are humbug for me -in MY opinion!
I will NOT answer you anymore!
BLOCKED
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything:
Once again:
Improve the faulty logics of your language.
I am not here to play the supernanny for silly kids with inferiority complexes who fake up adults.
And you have no real humor + cannot laugh about yourself.
We are not in a trash talk show here where you can get insulting+irrational any time.
Book your ticket for Jerry Springer or Tyrah Banks,that´s your peer group where you can ramble+rumble on and on and on.
BTW: I addressed the channel owner -not you !
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything:My reference to Catholic THEOLOGIANS was purely ironical+i know their faulty theology good enough+i din´t "argue" about them,i was satirizing them for ironic reasons.
On the other hand it is problematic to condemn other people ("the Catholics")as being all irrational.
Your lingual comprehension seems to have grave logical deficiencies.
"The Catholics"are not the Vatican,the inquisition was in the past+many Catholic members are less hypocrites than Calvinists/Methodists.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything: To make it not too complicated: BOTH statements are a statements of belief, nothing else.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything:There would be a difference if you gave an attributing meaning to"i don´t belive in any god"e.g. i don´t believe in any god that is almighty(good, bad wtf).
You trick yourself by trying to interprete too much into simple statements which have no fundament than themselves.
When someone says i don´t believe in any god this is practically the same as claiming that there is no god. It is both a subjective FELT statement BY HIMSELF + both are sentences which cannot be proved.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything:There is NO difference between the two, what you try to do is semantical humbug+almost tautology, you are confusing semantics with etymology. Humans are often so "arrogant" not to check that they are talking about their uncertain feelings when trying to argue about provable+unprovable things.The theologians of all centuries made the same mistakes.Read some Bertrand Russell on the definition of language and the meaning of words,i don´t feel forced to share your feelings here
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything: Even theologians of the Catholic or Lutheran church admit that the existence or nonexistence of (a) god cannot be proved with rational logical arguments. And feelings (about both matters) can all deceive us - as we should have learned in our lifetimes.
Buddhism also REFUSES to give an answer if there is a final authority behind it all.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@thebattle4everything:No no,agnosticism can be applied for all different cases of unprovable things.And your first sentence -sorry- is logical nonsense.There is no difference between not believing in a god or claiming that there is none.Even if you say:I assume that there is no god you imply the nonexistence of a god.But if you say:I don´t know or have my doubts THAT there is a god, it is agnostic.
When you claim something which cannot be proved with rational arguments,then it´s"only"a feeling.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
Therefore there can be people who are Agnostic Theist, Agnostic Atheist, Gnostic Theist and even Gnostic Atheist, although I have never met one.
So, Gnosticism & Agnosticism, and Theism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive terms.
Nortekman 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Theism and Atheism responds to what you BELIEVE or NOT BELIEVE regarding the existence of any god, gods or deities.
Gnosticism and Agnosticism responds to what you KNOW or DO NOT KNOW regarding anything from the existence of big foot to ghosts to life on other planets, but most of the time it is usually done in regards to the existence of god, gods or deities.
To KNOW and to BELIEVE in something are two very different things.
Nortekman 9 months ago
Atheism does not equate to Agnosticism; though the terms are not mutually exclusive. It is evident agnosticism and atheism are not, one in the same; as theists can be agnostic. Clearly you wouldn't say those theist are atheists.
Atheism/Theism - refers to belief of Gods...
Agnosticism - Refers to knowledge of Gods...(the lack of)
Therefore, everyone must fit the description of an agnostic, as no one holds real knowledge of any God. Faith is not equal to knowledge...
GMunny5 11 months ago
so im gunna go out on a limb here and say that technically there is no such thing as atheism. the reason i say this is that people think atheism is the act of not believing in god, when in fact it is the belief in nothing. this in itself is a belief and thus a contradiction. to say that atheism is not believing in god would technically make Buddhism, Taoism, Quietism, and other Eastern religions also be considered as "atheism" for their lack in the belief of a god
bryant9236 11 months ago
@bryant9236 No it's not a believe in nothing, you could call it the rejection in the believe in god(s) you can still believe every other shit on the planet and be an atheist as long as you don't believe in god(s) and these eastern religions could be considered atheist because that's exactly what they are.
Analphabet1337 11 months ago
There is no point in arguing either way.
skptcl 1 year ago
i think the reason christians want atheists to be agnostic instead is because A) they don't know wtf an agnostic is and B) if you think there is a god but don't believe in it (as the christian definition of agnostic goes), then you're less insulting to their faith. you're playing to their belief that people are atheist/agnostic in order to not be held accountable to God. not because you actually don't think there is one.
alixinthemiddle 1 year ago
I think understanding terms is very important and a requirement of communication.
agnosticism relates to epistemology
atheism relates to Theology
There is a strong movement to change what has always been the meanings of these words . If atheism can be redefined to be a form of belief rather than the absence of belief then it would carry a burden of proof.
The word agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley to describe what is knowable. One can believe in god or not and be an agnostic
TheRottieRobb 1 year ago
Well, if you want to say science is always right...
You look like you are from the stone age, your left eye is a bit crossed, TOOL time9900, you are wearing a shirt.
LOL!! :D
ExpertOfSound 1 year ago
All beliefs (and non-beliefs) tend to be agnostic. For example, it would be more precise for me to say "I know I am human" than for me to say "I believe I am human". Similarly, the statement "I know there is a god (or, conversely, no god)" is more precisely rephrased as "I believe there is a god (or, conversely, no god)"
Theists and atheists are both agnostic. "Strong Atheists" or "Explicit Atheists" may choose to put strength in an explicit belief, but neither the atheist nor the theist know.
ericrolofson 1 year ago
(A)Gnosticism is not a separate stance on a similar matter of discourse as that of (A)Theism. (A)Gnosticism pertains to the claim of knowledge or the lack of such, whereas (A)Theism pertains to the individuals belief in the deific, or lack of such.
With this in mind, the overwhelming majority of self-proclaimed "Agnostics" seem to be agnostic atheists who've grown up in an environment where being an atheist is considered negative, and thus want to stay away from that label.
ogith 1 year ago
@ogith
Furthermore, those who tend to label themselves "agnostics" usually have a desire to appear as a third group, a neutral island between the both extremes, but at the same time, they tend to act as if any potential deity (except perhaps a deist one) does not exist. No prayers, no adherence to any commandments, no slight nod to graven images of any deity, no sacrifices, etc etc, no nothing: Without any real regard for the chance of an existing god, what are you if not an atheist?
ogith 1 year ago
@thebattle4everything christians believe that everyone knows that THEIR god exists, and knows that jesus is god. All that says otherwise is denying it. If someone believes in something that twisted, seriously now, how can you argue? These people believe babies are born as full fledged jesus worshipers.
blazearmoru 1 year ago
You just piss me off. Sorry but you do. the burden of proof is on you. If I say I have a magic sandwhich then its on ME to show you this magic sandwhich. Not for you to prove it doesnt exist. and as you said if you have the truth its up to you. you cant say "prove nothing" but we can say "prove something"
bleachawsome 1 year ago
Agnostics are idiots.
Paumonsu 1 year ago
Comment removed
rutybear 1 year ago
a·the·ist: –noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
ag·nos·tic: –noun
1. 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.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
Agnostics and Atheists ARE NOT THE SAME. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant idiot.
rutybear 1 year ago 16
@rutybear
knowl·edge –noun
the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
belief –noun
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2 .confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3 .confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
tooltime9901 1 year ago 9
@tooltime9901:The constant reacting/responding to allegations of sophistic hypocrite trick players from Christian/Muslim ranks even leaves agnostics like me with the impression that atheists always feel the need to justify themselves.Why not just stop reacting to them?Then you would not give the impression to agnostics that Atheism MIGHT be a religion.And what is so awful or suspect with semantics?Semantics is a department of linguistics - not of religion.I can only"believe"when i trust someone.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@tooltime9901:In a scientific sense it is nonsense to"believe"in a flat earth or absolutely believe in life after death,either a nonexistence(flat earth)CAN be proved OR is a case of only assuming.If i have manic ideas then i can also assume that doomsday will be in 2012(as many do)but i will be rather disgraced if it does not happen
Define the word atheist then you got a solution: If someone says a "god" cannot exist - then it is a feeling, if you say i´m not sure if, it is logically correct.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@tooltime9901:Once again: It depends how YOU define a word that is used by you for your issues/matters. If you always leave the interpretative authority to your opponents then it should not surprise you if they constantly repeat what you refuse. I often experience this here in video discussions: Hypocrite bigots - who often only act AS IF they were bigots - because they want to appear like the"funniest" smart-asses on earth or in the matrix - are persons with whom no real discussion is possible.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@tooltime9901:
P.S.
I would also refuse the conception that "belief in" parents in necessary. Trust is a better word.
The word belief/believe (Glauben/glauben) has such an inflation-like use in the German language that it is almost comletely devaluated. Germans tend to say: I believe the weather will be fine tomorrow, even if they already most certainly know it - by the weather forecast. To "believe" something, which is very certain to come true, is logical nonsense.
MrSKINFLICK 9 months ago
@tooltime9901 Atheist BELIEVE there is no god. That my friend is faith. Agnostics don't bother with faith. U mad?
dmera420 7 months ago
@dmera420 lol don't feed the troll.
ChrisMM65 6 months ago
@rutybear "Agnostics and Atheists ARE NOT THE SAME. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant idiot."
Nobody claims the words mean the same thing. The questions are whether people who regard agnosticism as a third option regarding *belief* in binary propositions are confusing belief and knowledge and whether the word agnostic is better understood as a modifier that says something about the justification you feel you have for your beliefs in this situation.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@rutybear That is, "I don't believe God exists(=I act as if no gods exist=I am an atheist) *because* [insert your favorite definition of agnostic]. People who call themselves agnostics are almost always practical atheists though, and they use the word explicitly to distance themselves from a theism they feel is unsupported, but are afraid to state that they think claims about gods are insane. Anyway, in practice agnostic is near meaningless as a noun as it doesn't exclude any type of belief.
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@rutybear The more modern approached by using agnostic as a qualifier to theist and atheist on the other hand does have immense clarifying value about what you actually believe and why. In a reality where no philosophy can defeat skepticism with certainty, stating that you believe X to be unknowable is simply comical, entirely uninformative, and necessarily inconsistent with your actual beliefs about binary propositions. If you act as if you know you're being a hypocrite claiming you don't
Gnomefro 1 year ago
@rutybear An atheist is someone who rejects/denies the theist claim 100%, for any reason. The agnostic doesn’t know or doesn’t care. In every true/false question there are three options true, false and don’t know. They are all distinct and mutually exclusive of one another. I am an atheist. I reject the theist claim 100% because I know god don’t exist. I know god don’t exist for the same reason I know Sponge Bob don’t exist. They are both cartoons.
residentatheist 5 months ago
Comment removed
residentatheist 5 months ago
@rutybear You are correct. Atheist and agnostics are, in fact, mutually exclusive. Furthermore the idea that atheist and theist is about belief is completely false. The word belief should not even be used in the same sentence with theist or atheist. The theist doesn't believe there is a god. The theist claim is that god exists. The theist makes this claim based on the knowledge/information they received from a book or other religious teachings. Their belief is in their book, not their god.
residentatheist 5 months ago
@rutybear I agree with you. Anybody who doesn't should go to evilbibleDOTcom and click on "definition of atheism". The atheists are trying to redefine the word atheism to include babies and cattle instead of just using the word nontheist to describe us all. When it comes to the word agnostic they always want to skip past it's English history and go straight to Greek origin but they NEVER want to mention the fact that the word atheist comes from the word Greek word atheos which = "without God".
incomprehensible14 4 months ago
Comment removed
rutybear 1 year ago
The burden of proof is not semantics. It's simple logic. You cannot prove a negative.
And atheism / agnosticism is not semantics. It's 2 completely different things. Atheism is the rejection of a set of beliefs (theistic conj