Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

[Bladers]

Atheist leader is now wavering in his stance against God. Its an amazing thing how when people begin to reach their end (age 70), when the end of their tunnel is getting close, they begin to doubt.


He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator. An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.” Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

[rufuspaul]

Yet they more I read of Bladers the more I question how a supreme being could have created him.

[Bladers]

I also thought the title could also be "Prominent Atheist Leader converts to agnostic afters tens of years of championing atheism."


He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

Yet they more I read of Bladers the more I question how a supreme being could have created him.This.

[Bladers]

Yet they more I read of Bladers the more I question how a supreme being could have created him.

Ever heard of 'Don't shoot the messenger?'

Is the message too much to handle that you have to shoot to messenger in an attempt to cover up the message?

Point is, your leader converted to agnostic. Don't start insulting someone who you don't believe in. Let's talk about your leader who after years of championing athiesm and cursing religion including agnostism, is now converting to agnostics?

[gigantes]

he knows damn well there's no god, but as he nears the end of the line, his ego needs there to be a god. because if you're an athiest, the prospect of completely dissolving in to nothingness can be truly terrifying.

god and religion may be bullshit, but it does tend to keep you feeling a little warm and toasty even in the worst of times, knowing that you'll be preserved in some form after your body dies.

dawkins as a scientist can simply point to the old logical statement that god can be neither proven nor disproven, and so bring himself a little comfort in his final years.....

[rufuspaul]

Ever heard of 'Don't shoot the messenger?'

Is the message too much to handle that you have to shoot to messenger in an attempt to cover up the message?

Point is, your leader converted to agnostic. Don't start insulting someone who you don't believe in. Let's talk about your leader who after years of championing athiesm and cursing religion including agnostism, is now converting to agnostics?

He's not my leader. I'm a practicing Catholic. Yet, according to you, I'm going to Hell for not worshiping the right way. Ever heard of "there's more than one way to skin a cat"?

[rufuspaul]

What's scary about nothingness?

I know right? It means an eternity without Bladers.

[Bladers]

I know right? It means an eternity without Bladers.

Can Jeff ban this fool for trolling my thread? GET OUT!!!
Go whore attention somewhere else!

[Bladers]

What's scary about nothingness?

That's not the issue. I think you and gigantes have it wrong.

Infact there is nothing scary about nothingness. because there is "nothing".

What Dawkins is wavering in is the thought of "something".
What if there is something...for someone who have spent his whole life traveling around the world proclaiming there is "nothing". It is a scary thing when they come to the realization that there could be "something".

Therefore he converts to agnostics. Because he no longer believes there is No God.

But I wonder what all those people he has fooled and stringed around all these years are saying.

[rufuspaul]

Can Jeff ban this fool for trolling my thread? GET OUT!!!
Go whore attention somewhere else!

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/jesusumad.jpg

[DeuceWallaces]

If you skin a cat, no matter the method, you're going to hell.

[Bladers]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/jesusumad.jpg

Looks like you made that. Ever heard of don't use God's name in vain... and before you tell me i didn't use his "name". Do you know what God's name means?

[LJJ]

You are just not smart enough to convince people Bladers. You lack the required amount of intelligence and people skills.

Know your limitations.

[rufuspaul]

If you skin a cat, no matter the method, you're going to hell.

Doh!

[DeuceWallaces]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ld8c1bB8ma1qzaxefo1_500.jpg

[Bladers]

Still waiting for atheists to address thieir leaders statement intelligently. How do you guys feel about your leader converting to agnostics?


'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Professor Dawkins, the former Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is a dedicated admirer of Charles Darwin, regarding the Victorian pioneer of evolution as the man who explained ‘everything we know about life’.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[-p.tiddy-]

he knows damn well there's no god, but as he nears the end of the line, his ego needs there to be a god. because if you're an athiest, the prospect of completely dissolving in to nothingness can be truly terrifying.

god and religion may be bullshit, but it does tend to keep you feeling a little warm and toasty even in the worst of times, knowing that you'll be preserved in some form after your body dies.

dawkins as a scientist can simply point to the old logical statement that god can be neither proven nor disproven, and so bring himself a little comfort in his final years.....
ehh

when you get close to "the end" it can open your eyes though...suddenly you realize maybe there is more to existence than what we can see with our own eyes...it is a gut check, let's see if you REALLY believe we are alone.

you know how most would say there has to be life on other planets due to the vast amount of plants/stars out there?...IMO a similar logic applies to there being other planes/realms...I think it is extremely unlikely this universe is "it".

[Noob Saibot]

Well as a mere human being on Earth how can anyone, Dawkins or someone else, prove the existence of a supernatural creator?

[-p.tiddy-]

meanwhile Catholic Rufus and Douche troll another young poster...:facepalm

[-p.tiddy-]

Well as a mere human being on Earth how can anyone, Dawkins or someone else, prove the existence of a supernatural creator?
they can't...just like proving the non-existence of anything "supernatural"

[rufuspaul]

ehh

when you get close to "the end" it can open your eyes though...suddenly you realize maybe there is more to existence than what we can see with our own eyes...it is a gut check, let's see if you REALLY believe we are alone.

you know how most would say there has to be life on other planets due to the vast amount of plants/stars out there?...IMO a similar logic applies to there being other planes/realms...I think it is extremely unlikely this universe is "it".

True. If there are infinite combinations it is definitely possible that we are existing in more than one reality.

[N0Skillz]

According to Bladers only Pedophiles go to heaven

[rufuspaul]

meanwhile Catholic Rufus and Douche troll another young poster...:facepalm


It's not planned I swear. :oldlol:

I actually believe in the basic tenets of Christianity but I don't presume it to be the only path to enlightenment. People like Bladers, who try and force their view really piss me off.

[-p.tiddy-]

Hey Deuce, are you religious?...or a thiest?...agnostic?...athiest?

where do you stand?

[rufuspaul]

According to Bladers only Pedophiles go to heaven

Then there's hope for me! :rockon:

[DeuceWallaces]

meanwhile Catholic Rufus and Douche troll another young poster...:facepalm

Every one of your posts trolls those of us with a functioning cortex.

_

Agnostic

[Bladers]

According to Bladers only Pedophiles go to heaven

Since you believe people are born gays and lesbian then so are pedos and rapist and serial killlers, etc.

So why punish them for something they were born with? Why is the latter a crime and not the former?

[dunksby]

Well at least he leaves room for doubting his beliefs, cant say the same about the religious who never doubt the existence of God.
On a side note, I'm an Atheist but I don't consider Dawkins or any other human being as my leader. The concept of Atheism having a leader is absurd.

[dunksby]

Since you believe people are born gays and lesbian then so are pedos and rapist and serial killlers, etc.

So why punish them for something they were born with? Why is the latter a crime and not the former?
Because the rules are made by human beings and they are not supposed to be fair or perfect but to fit the moral values made up by religions throughout human history in order to put a leash on human's primal drives.

[-p.tiddy-]

Every one of your posts trolls those of us with a functioning cortex.

_

Agnostic
wrong, those of us with a functioning cortex aren't bothered by the posts of others

[Jackass18]

Damn, it looks like all the trolls (bladers, poodle) are coming back. Is starface next?

[rufuspaul]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/ennui.jpg

[Jackass18]

I know right? It means an eternity without Bladers.

I never thought of it that way. I'm in!

[Psileas]

As far as I know, Dawkins was never "100 sure" that God did not exist. He always claimed that there could exist a God, but only in the sense that any mythological entity could. In his own belief scale, he categorized himself at 6.9 out of 7, while most believers hover around 2 and skeptics between 5 and 6. Of course, this scale is subjectively measured (=nobody means what 6.9 really means, is it measured decimally or logarithmically?), but it seems roughly the same as calling an earthquake "not the biggest ever measured", because it "only" registered 9.3 on the Richter scale.

(EDIT: Forgot to add a number).

[-p.tiddy-]

As far as I know, Dawkins was never "100 sure" that God did not exist. He always claimed that there could exist a God, but only in the sense that any mythological entity could. In his own belief scale, he categorized himself at 6.9 out of 7, while most believers hover around and skeptics between 5 and 6. Of course, this scale is subjectively measured (=nobody means what 6.9 really means, is it measured decimally or logarithmically?), but it seems roughly the same as calling an earthquake "not the biggest ever measured", because it "only" registered 9.3 on the Richter scale.
then he is an agnostic...

[highwhey]

Every one of your posts trolls those of us with a functioning cortex.

_

Agnostic
i respect you deuce, you seem like a cool dude with an actual life(probably why a lot of ish trolls hate u) and an interesting career. overall you're an intellegent person so i typically respct your opinions.

so, having waxed your ***** to a fine shine with the comment above^^, from the little i know, i ask, have there been any observations of macro-evolution? i know there have been plenty of micro-evoution but that hardly validates evolution. the changing in size of a birds peak is not a grand scale change.

again, not trying to insult you, i ask that question with respect b/c i know you're smart individual who has a greater background in biology and other sciences than i currently do.

[sawyersauce]

Atheism doesn

[bdreason]

Science doesn't rule out the existence of God, and has never attempted to.

[Bladers]

Atheism doesn’t have a leader. It isn’t an organisation.


http://www.atheists.org/

President: David Silverman
Annual Convention: March 25th and 26th , 2012
Tickets: $179

......

And here is Richard dawkins at american atheist conference 09.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbza-UtseE0

[MightyWhitey]

Atheist leader is now wavering in his stance against God. Its an amazing thing how when people begin to reach their end (age 70), when the end of their tunnel is getting close, they begin to doubt.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
If you read his book 'The God Delusion' you would see why he says this. He's a scientist so he deals with evidence based arguments. As a scientist he will never just discard the notion of "god" but he doesn't believ in any of the religions make believe gods we know today.

[Is He Ill]

:facepalm This guy is still at it?

[sawyersauce]

http://www.atheists.org/

President: David Silverman
Annual Convention: March 25th and 26th , 2012
Tickets: $179

......



That's the American Atheists, a legal society, not atheism itself. Atheism is a disbelief.

Again, I really can't tell if you're being serious or not. Maybe I'm wasting my time...

Think about it this way; Monotheism isn't an organisation, though the Catholic church is. Same principle.

[Bladers]

No. You can be an atheist but think that there's a possibility of something out there. That's just logical, there's no proof either way.

That's like saying you don't believe in mythical creatures, but it would be cool if the Loch Ness Monster exists.

would be cool... lol wtf?:lol

tell me an atheist who says "it would be cool if there was a God." If God exists they would be going to hell.

[N0Skillz]

Since you believe people are born gays and lesbian then so are pedos and rapist and serial killlers, etc.

So why punish them for something they were born with? Why is the latter a crime and not the former?


There's a big difference between being gay and a rapist or serial killer. I hope you see that there is

[-p.tiddy-]

No. You can be an atheist but think that there's a possibility of something out there. That's just logical, there's no proof either way.

That's like saying you don't believe in mythical creatures, but it would be cool if the Loch Ness Monster exists.
athiests are NOT logical though...agnostics are

athiesm rejects the notion of any "god"...no possibility of anything else


Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1]


IMO athiesm is just as illogical as any religion...both claim to know something that is impossible to prove...agnostics are the logical ones

[Is He Ill]

Since you believe people are born gays and lesbian then so are pedos and rapist and serial killlers, etc.

So why punish them for something they were born with? Why is the latter a crime and not the former?

Because pedos, rapists, and serial killers are not fit for our society. It's not about punishing them, it's about keeping them far away from the rest of us.

[G-train]

Gather around the campfire and be enlightened by G-train.

It's not really your fault, but 99.99999% of Americans are blind. You have literally no idea about life, and the smarter you think you are the dumber you actually are. Most of you deny a spiritual world and quote wikipedia to back up your brilliant intelligence.
Later this year I will be returning to Papua New Guinea to assist in ministry where the deaf/blind/paralysed/demonic/limbs missing are instantly healed via prayer, and then when I leave the meetings I see the fireballs in the air from the witches that were casting spells against the ministry. I'll see people slither across the ground like a snake and their eyes turn completely yellow before being delivered. Then 1000's become Christian as the miracles prove the teaching. 10's of thousands are in the crowds. In africa they gather in the 100's of thousands.
http://www.timtodd.org/images/lagos_banner.jpg

So talk and post on ISH, get married and have 3 kids, drive a nice car, hold your theories close to your chest at night like a comforting teddy bear, but dont say you havent been told of the reality of Jesus Christ that western civilisation denies - as I just delivered you the message from first hand experience.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29

[MightyWhitey]

[QUOTE=G-train]Gather around the campfire and be enlightened by G-train.

It's not really your fault, but 99.99999% of Americans are blind. You have literally no idea about life, and the smarter you think you are the dumber you actually are. Most of you deny a spiritual world and quote wikipedia to back up your brilliant intelligence.
Later this year I will be returning to Papua New Guinea to assist in ministry where the deaf/blind/paralysed/demonic/limbs missing are instantly healed via prayer, and then when I leave the meetings I see the fireballs in the air from the witches that were casting spells against the ministry. I'll see people slither across the ground like a snake and their eyes turn completely yellow before being delivered. Then 1000's become Christian as the miracles prove the teaching. 10's of thousands are in the crowds. In africa they gather in the 100's of thousands.
http://www.timtodd.org/images/lagos_banner.jpg

So talk and post on ISH, get married and have 3 kids, drive a nice car, hold your theories close to your chest at night like a comforting teddy bear, but dont say you havent been told of the reality of Jesus Christ that western civilisation denies - as I just delivered you the message from first hand experience.

[B]But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things

[MightyWhitey]

I've read some of Dawkins books. He doesn't pull any punches. He poked so many holes in the judeao-christian religions that makes the whole thing look like Swiss cheese. A brilliant and accomplished man.

[Is He Ill]

Gather around the campfire and be enlightened by G-train.

It's not really your fault, but 99.99999% of Americans are blind. You have literally no idea about life, and the smarter you think you are the dumber you actually are. Most of you deny a spiritual world and quote wikipedia to back up your brilliant intelligence.
Later this year I will be returning to Papua New Guinea to assist in ministry where the deaf/blind/paralysed/demonic/limbs missing are instantly healed via prayer, and then when I leave the meetings I see the fireballs in the air from the witches that were casting spells against the ministry. I'll see people slither across the ground like a snake and their eyes turn completely yellow before being delivered. Then 1000's become Christian as the miracles prove the teaching. 10's of thousands are in the crowds. In africa they gather in the 100's of thousands.
http://www.timtodd.org/images/lagos_banner.jpg

So talk and post on ISH, get married and have 3 kids, drive a nice car, hold your theories close to your chest at night like a comforting teddy bear, but dont say you havent been told of the reality of Jesus Christ that western civilisation denies - as I just delivered you the message from first hand experience.

But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.
1 Corinthians 1:27-29

Well, that settles it then. I think I will move on and let the loons throw a loon parade.

[kjarnorkudori]

Atheist leader is now wavering in his stance against God. Its an amazing thing how when people begin to reach their end (age 70), when the end of their tunnel is getting close, they begin to doubt.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

You can't prove a negative is basically what he's saying.
His stance on religion hasn't changed one bit, you can't prove that god doesn't exist, you also can't prove that there isn't a golden teapot behind the sun that has divine powers, but we both know the chances of said teapot existing are very slim.

[Take Your Lumps]

:rolleyes:

Just another flimsy attempt at trying to pigeon hole people as being 100% this or that.

If you're interested in understanding the nuances of Gnostic/Agnostic & Theist/Atheist, read this (http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/).

[MightyWhitey]

The problem with the monotheistic religions is validity. Dawkins said it best when he said that most religious people are atheists when it comes to thor, zeus, or the flying spaghetti monster. Some people just go one god further.

[REACTION]

Nobody is certain that god does not exist.

Just like nobody is certain that he does exist.

There is only belief and doubt. No certainty.

[Nash]

I don't get hardcore atheists. Why go so hard at it? There is nothing to gain.

Religious person: If there isn't an afterlife nothing happens. If there is, he'll be rewarded.

Atheist: If there isn't an afterlife, nothing happens. But if there is an afterlife, the atheist is ****ed. Its basically a lose lose situation.

[Is He Ill]

I don't get hardcore atheists. Why go so hard at it? There is nothing to gain.

Religious person: If there isn't an afterlife nothing happens. If there is, he'll be rewarded.

Atheist: If there isn't an afterlife, nothing happens. But if there is an afterlife, the atheist is ****ed. Its basically a lose lose situation.

In that case the religious person may as well be ****ed also because there are thousands of religions in the history of this planet and they may have picked the wrong one. That's if you are looking at it from a childish point of view. The fact is that atheists help keep the religious folks in check.

[Stuckey]

Nobody is certain that god does not exist.

Just like nobody is certain that he does exist.

There is only belief and doubt. No certainty.

this

i dont get how anyone could be an atheist, how can someone prove a negative?

[Randy]

I don't get hardcore atheists. Why go so hard at it? There is nothing to gain.

Religious person: If there isn't an afterlife nothing happens. If there is, he'll be rewarded.

Atheist: If there isn't an afterlife, nothing happens. But if there is an afterlife, the atheist is ****ed. Its basically a lose lose situation.

To quote a man much wiser than you or I:

"What if we picked the wrong religion? Every week we're just making god madder and madder."

[Randy]

this

i dont get how anyone could be an atheist, how can someone prove a negative?

Atheism doesn't have the burden of proof.

[Velocirap31]

I'll sleep in on Sundays for the rest of my life. Good enough for me.

[vinsane01]

Wasnt that his stance before? Anyway, most atheists are not sure if a god exist. If you are sure of something there is no need to believe in it since you already know it to be true. In my opinion, it's intellectually dishonest for any atheist to say they are certain that a god in whatever form, state or being doesnt exist.

Knowledge and belief answers two different forms of questioning. The former is associated with certainty and the latter with opinion and conviction without a proper amount of justification. For me, you cant asnwer the question, 'Do you believe in god' with "i dont know" since it implies you do not know what you believe. The answer "i dont know" really answers the question, 'Are you certain a god exist?' Belief need not be fully justified as oppose to knowledge. So for me once you begin to question the existence of a god, isnt assured of it's existence and unsure of what to believe then you are in a sense a non believer, and that is what atheists simply are.

I dont want to make this a long post so i'll end by saying most atheists are also agnostics, since the two words are not part of the same category but rather complementary words for each other.

[macmac]

I don't get hardcore atheists. Why go so hard at it? There is nothing to gain.

Religious person: If there isn't an afterlife nothing happens. If there is, he'll be rewarded.

Atheist: If there isn't an afterlife, nothing happens. But if there is an afterlife, the atheist is ****ed. Its basically a lose lose situation.

There is no way you can be older than 6 and believe what u just wrote. Not believing in God makes you go to hell, oh no, I Better believe just in case, same reason why I never say bloody Mary in front a mirror in the dark, it's soo spooky!

If there is God, does he really care if I worship him? I mean how vain is this dude?

[Qwyjibo]

There is no way you can be older than 6 and believe what u just wrote. Not believing in God makes you go to hell, oh no, I Better believe just in case, same reason why I never say bloody Mary in front a mirror in the dark, it's soo spooky!

If there is God, does he really care if I worship him? I mean how vain is this dude?
Exactly.

I don't believe in a God but if one exists then I refuse to believe that such a powerful being would be so petty. Some of the "rules" made up by the people who created the Bible and other religious texts are so ridiculous and arbitrary that it would be laughable if an omnipotent being actually enforced them.

[ZenMaster]

I don't get hardcore atheists. Why go so hard at it? There is nothing to gain.

Religious person: If there isn't an afterlife nothing happens. If there is, he'll be rewarded.

Atheist: If there isn't an afterlife, nothing happens. But if there is an afterlife, the atheist is ****ed. Its basically a lose lose situation.

lol what about in real life?

From what I understand you have to be religious to become the united states president, now that's some crazy shit.

[joe]

Atheism makes no logical sense. If you're a logical thinker, agnostic is the only answer. "I don't know," is the only answer to the God question.

Being anti-religion is not the same as being atheist. I think most atheists don't know the difference. Besides the young ones, they still have time to learn...

[Swaggin916]

he knows damn well there's no god, but as he nears the end of the line, his ego needs there to be a god. because if you're an athiest, the prospect of completely dissolving in to nothingness can be truly terrifying.

god and religion may be bullshit, but it does tend to keep you feeling a little warm and toasty even in the worst of times, knowing that you'll be preserved in some form after your body dies.

dawkins as a scientist can simply point to the old logical statement that god can be neither proven nor disproven, and so bring himself a little comfort in his final years.....
why is dissolving into nothingnes errifying? tats wat i believe eill most likely happen and im not frightened. it will be just like it was before i got here... nothing scary about that. i do think the human brain is insanely advanced enough thonthat possibly there could be a dream like state after we die due to the subconscious, but when u die u are brain dead so i find it doubtful. it just feels like that if the heart stops then the brain may not completely die... at least not at first... so i think it could be a dream like state and then all of he sudden its gone and its just like u went to sleep, did not dream, and never woke up.

[RazorBaLade]

It's not about theism vs gnostic. Its not one or the other.

There are 4 kinds

Agnostic THEIST - believes in religion and god, but knows that no one knows for sure and is not crazy over it.. Kind of the "Nobody knows but I believe" answer

Gnostic THEIST - believes in religion and god and is 100% certain that it is all true

Agnostic ATHEIST - does not see any logical reason to believe in religion or god, but understands that however unlikely it is always possible

Gnostic ATHEIST - does not believe in god or religion, believes in 0 chance of god and religion eing true

Dawkins is the agnostic atheist. He is still an atheist.

Just wanted to make sure that is understood, I only read the original post in this thread

[RazorBaLade]

I don't get hardcore atheists. Why go so hard at it? There is nothing to gain.

Religious person: If there isn't an afterlife nothing happens. If there is, he'll be rewarded.

Atheist: If there isn't an afterlife, nothing happens. But if there is an afterlife, the atheist is ****ed. Its basically a lose lose situation.

look at how many wars and hate occurs because of religion... could they be prevented if there is no religion to die for? even 1 war or area of hate? then atheism is worth it 2 them

[miller-time]

Atheism makes no logical sense. If you're a logical thinker, agnostic is the only answer. "I don't know," is the only answer to the God question.

Being anti-religion is not the same as being atheist. I think most atheists don't know the difference. Besides the young ones, they still have time to learn...

agnostic atheist is what most agnostic people are and what most atheists are. they aren't mutually exclusive positions. if you are agnostic, and you don't believe in god on faith then you are an atheist too.

[joe]

Atheists BELIEVE there isn't a god, they don't KNOW there isn't god.


But that isn't logical thought. Not one human on this earth has a clue whether or not there's a God. To say you believe or don't believe in one direction is irrational.

Those who do believe are basing that on faith.. which is irrational. But at least they admit it.

Atheists run around talking about science, trying to be logical people. Yet their thinking is just as irrational and faith based.

[-p.tiddy-]

I said a logical person, not all atheists are logical.

You can reject the idea of something, but still admit it is within the realm of possibilities, albeit ridiculous.

I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or spiritual stuff, but I admit that something could potentially be there because there's no proof either way.

It's not a tough concept.
you're an agnositc


there IS a god = thiest
there IS NO god = athiest

"I don't know, there is no proof either way" = agnostic

It's not a tough concept

[RazorBaLade]

you're an agnositc


there IS a god = thiest
there IS NO god = athiest

"I don't know, there is no proof either way" = agnostic

It's not a tough concept

this is wrong

[joe]

agnostic atheist is what most agnostic people are and what most atheists are. they aren't mutually exclusive positions. if you are agnostic, and you don't believe in god on faith then you are an atheist too.

The only definition of atheism I've ever known, is a disbelief in a God. I've never heard this agnostic-atheist stuff. Might as well be a Christian-Muslim.

You either believe, don't believe, or you say "I don't know." Theist, atheist, or agnostic. What's the need for these inbetween terms?

[-p.tiddy-]

agnostic atheist is what most agnostic people are and what most atheists are. they aren't mutually exclusive positions. if you are agnostic, and you don't believe in god on faith then you are an atheist too.
No Joe is right...the majority of athiests just think that because they don't believe in the Bible that makes them an athiest.

it isn't an "anti-religious" stance...it is a stance against there being anything out there other than this universe


most agnostics that claim to be agnostic knw exactly what it means, and at it's core it means they accept the answer is beyond them...

[RazorBaLade]

No Joe is right...the majority of athiests just think that because they don't believe in the Bible that makes them an athiest.

it isn't an "anti-religious" stance...it is a stance against there being anything out there other than this universe


most agnostics that claim to be agnostic knw exactly what it means, and at it's core it means they accept the answer is beyond them...

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

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

[-p.tiddy-]

The only definition of atheism I've ever known, is a disbelief in a God. I've never heard this agnostic-atheist stuff. Might as well be a Christian-Muslim.

You either believe, don't believe, or you say "I don't know." Theist, atheist, or agnostic. What's the need for these inbetween terms?
I agree, no one actually uses all of those tweener things

[-p.tiddy-]

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

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).
yes...those are still agnostics

they feel one one in their gut (like a Christian feeling in his gut Jesus is real)...but admitt they could be wrong

[-p.tiddy-]

this is wrong
no it isn't

[RazorBaLade]

yes...those are still agnostics

they feel one one in their gut (like a Christian feeling in his gut Jesus is real)...but admitt they could be wrong

I'm telling you that saying a person has to choose between being agnostic or atheist is like saying an apple can either be green or an apple. Green is a description of its color just like Gnostic/Agnostic is a DESCRIPTION of atheism or religious people, not a label like atheism or theist is.

its not atheism agnostic or religious - pick one. It simply isn't the case.

[RazorBaLade]

no it isn't

I've already given you the facts that show agnosticism is a mere description of the kind of atheist or religious person you are and not an either or, if you wish to continue to believe otherwise you are free to do so.

[-p.tiddy-]

I'm telling you that saying a person has to choose between being agnostic or atheist is like saying an apple can either be green or an apple. Green is a description of its color just like Gnostic/Agnostic is a DESCRIPTION of atheism or religious people, not a label like atheism or theist is.

its not atheism agnostic or religious - pick one. It simply isn't the case.
for the vast majority of the world that is the case...I've never heard anyone say "I'm a agnostic athiest"....that just means you're a fcking agnostic that leans toward athiesm...so just say what you are...an agnostic

A true athiest believes THIS IS IT...there is NOTHING ELSE

[-p.tiddy-]

I've already given you the facts that show agnosticism is a mere description of the kind of atheist or religious person you are and not an either or, if you wish to continue to believe otherwise you are free to do so.
agnostism at its core means exactly what I said I means...it means you admit you don't know the answer

you can break it down into a hundred sub catagories if you want...it doesn't make what I said wrong

[RazorBaLade]

for the vast majority of the world that is the case...I've never heard anyone say "I'm a agnostic athiest"....that just means you're a fcking agnostic that leans toward athiesm...so just say what you are...an agnostic

A true athiest believes THIS IS IT...there is NOTHING ELSE

What vast majority? Where are you getting this?

You can believe what you want and change the definitions as you please bro, I was just telling you the facts.

[joe]

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

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

I can understand why these terms exist, but I don't find them very useful.

If someone identifies as an agnostic, that's signaling they don't rule out the possibility of a God. Whether they mostly rule it out or mostly don't rule it out... they still admit they can't be sure. That kind of minutia seems unworthy of its own definition..

I'm trying to identify myself, but I find it hard to pick one or the other. I feel like I'm pretty much in the middle. There could be a God, there could not be.. I really don't lean strongly in any direction. Life could be a video game for all we know. This could be a virtual reality simulator. Who knowwwwwws, ya knowww?

[RazorBaLade]

agnostism at its core means exactly what I said I means...it means you admit you don't know the answer

No it doesn't. I already gave you the real definition, you denied it and invented your own. Agnosticism is a description of the kind of atheist or religious person you are, that is all. You can say it means a billion other things but it factually only means one thing. it is not about atheism or agnostic.... Its gnostic or agnostic atheist. Simple as that.

[-p.tiddy-]

What vast majority? Where are you getting this?

You can believe what you want and change the definitions as you please bro, I was just telling you the facts.
um, my definitions are the REAL definitions...

[-p.tiddy-]

No it doesn't. I already gave you the real definition, you denied it and invented your own. Agnosticism is a description of the kind of atheist or religious person you are, that is all. You can say it means a billion other things but it factually only means one thing. it is not about atheism or agnostic.... Its gnostic or agnostic atheist. Simple as that.
no it isn't you retard


[QUOTE]Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims

[RazorBaLade]

um, my definitions are the REAL definitions...

ill send em to ya again maybe you didnt see my post

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

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).


I can understand why these terms exist, but I don't find them very useful.

If someone identifies as an agnostic, that's signaling they don't rule out the possibility of a God. Whether they mostly rule it out or mostly don't rule it out... they still admit they can't be sure. That kind of minutia seems unworthy of its own definition..

The difference is that an agnostic atheist is not going to tell a religious person they are an idiot, they are completely lax even though they don't believe in anything. They dont just think its a personal given truth, they simply came to the conclusion based on the current facts... They don't force it on people. Thats why the descriptions exist... theres obviously the kind of religious people that go door to door and sell you on why you're going to hell and theres the kind that simply dont care but call themselves christians for example. get it?

[joe]

ill send em to ya again maybe you didnt see my post

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

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).



The difference is that an agnostic atheist is not going to tell a religious person they are an idiot, they are completely lax even though they don't believe in anything. They dont just think its a personal given truth, they simply came to the conclusion based on the current facts... They don't force it on people. Thats why the descriptions exist... theres obviously the kind of religious people that go door to door and sell you on why you're going to hell and theres the kind that simply dont care but call themselves christians for example. get it?

Given that view, I'd say a better definition would simply by "ass hole agnostic" or "chill agnostic." That's a better description of what you're describing.

[-p.tiddy-]

ill send em to ya again maybe you didnt see my post

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

Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a deity exists but do not claim it as personal knowledge).

yeah I'll run this by you again...

THOSE ARE STILL AGNOSTICS


not athiests...not thiest...not Christians...not worshipers of Satan...they are AGNOSTICS

[RazorBaLade]

Given that view, I'd say a better definition would simply by "ass hole agnostic" or "chill agnostic." That's a better description of what you're describing.

Right but obviously thats not very tact... And depending on who you ask, those assholes are doing gods work or doing science's work or whatever. its a mess.

[RazorBaLade]

yeah I'll run this by you again...

THOSE ARE STILL AGNOSTICS


not athiests...not thiest...not Christians...not worshipers of Satan...they are AGNOSTICS

If you still hold the position of its either agnostic or atheist then you've read the definitions, denied it and replaced it with your own. Thats all I can say to ya.

[War Machine]

War Machine is a killing work of art. He does nothing but kill, kill, and kill even more. God could stop me, but He understands I am the War Machine, not point in even trying.

:pimp:

[War Machine]

he knows damn well there's no god, but as he nears the end of the line, his ego needs there to be a god. because if you're an athiest, the prospect of completely dissolving in to nothingness can be truly terrifying.

god and religion may be bullshit, but it does tend to keep you feeling a little warm and toasty even in the worst of times, knowing that you'll be preserved in some form after your body dies.

dawkins as a scientist can simply point to the old logical statement that god can be neither proven nor disproven, and so bring himself a little comfort in his final years.....

Hahahahaha, how can he know damn well there's no god, if he's saying he isn't completely sure? No one is completely sure one way or another. Anyone who says they know for sure there is a god or there is not a god either way, is lying. It makes you wonder though, since we can't prove god to be true or false, the irony in all this favors on god's or a creator's side, and not the other.

Think about that. It's rather interesting. That points to design in my own opinion.

On a side note - Hawkings is a fu*king idiot.

[Simple Jack]

Atheist leader is now wavering in his stance against God. Its an amazing thing how when people begin to reach their end (age 70), when the end of their tunnel is getting close, they begin to doubt.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

He cannot be sure there isn't just as no one can be sure there is. It's called being Agnostic and it is the correct stance because in the end, we have no idea and there is NO way of proving one side or the other.

[Simple Jack]

Since you believe people are born gays and lesbian then so are pedos and rapist and serial killlers, etc.

So why punish them for something they were born with? Why is the latter a crime and not the former?

Haha because a consensual relationship between people of the same sex is in any way remotely related to killing another human being or destroying the life of a child. The issue is the action itself, not if they were born with it or not that makes it bad.

[Simple Jack]

You can't prove a negative is basically what he's saying.
His stance on religion hasn't changed one bit, you can't prove that god doesn't exist, you also can't prove that there isn't a golden teapot behind the sun that has divine powers, but we both know the chances of said teapot existing are very slim.

Yes, you can prove a negative.

[dee-rose]

would be cool... lol wtf?:lol

tell me an atheist who says "it would be cool if there was a God." If God exists they would be going to hell.
If God exists, would he really be so petty as to condemn people to an eternity of pain just because they didn't believe in him?

[dee-rose]

I don't get hardcore atheists. Why go so hard at it? There is nothing to gain.

Religious person: If there isn't an afterlife nothing happens. If there is, he'll be rewarded.

Atheist: If there isn't an afterlife, nothing happens. But if there is an afterlife, the atheist is ****ed. Its basically a lose lose situation.
I don't know. Probably because of the massive bloodshed, hate and torture as a result of religious conflicts.

Or maybe because there are actual bills that might not be passed in the US because of religion. (gay marriage, contraceptive controversy). When something you don't believe in is literally taking over the planet, it get's sort of annoying.

[miller-time]

The only definition of atheism I've ever known, is a disbelief in a God. I've never heard this agnostic-atheist stuff. Might as well be a Christian-Muslim.

You either believe, don't believe, or you say "I don't know." Theist, atheist, or agnostic. What's the need for these inbetween terms?

if you take the position i don't know, do you hold a belief in god, or not a belief in god?

i'm not saying you have a positive belief that god doesn't exist. i'm saying you don't hold a belief in god. that is the definition of atheist (or at least one of them, the other being the positive belief that god doesn't exist). the definition of the two positions of atheism can also called be called strong and weak atheism.

agnosticism and atheism aren't on the same continuum.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Athei st%252520v%252520Theist.png

[RazorBaLade]

if you take the position i don't know, do you hold a belief in god, or not a belief in god?

i'm not saying you have a positive belief that god doesn't exist. i'm saying you don't hold a belief in god. that is the definition of atheist (or at least one of them, the other being the positive belief that god doesn't exist). the definition of the two positions of atheism can also called be called strong and weak atheism.

agnosticism and atheism aren't on the same continuum.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Athei st%252520v%252520Theist.png

inb4 that dude makes his own graph of ATHEISM or AGNOSTIC or RELIGIOUS and posts it here

[joe]

if you take the position i don't know, do you hold a belief in god, or not a belief in god?

i'm not saying you have a positive belief that god doesn't exist. i'm saying you don't hold a belief in god. that is the definition of atheist (or at least one of them, the other being the positive belief that god doesn't exist). the definition of the two positions of atheism can also called be called strong and weak atheism.

agnosticism and atheism aren't on the same continuum.

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-q2d4A4N5arw/TmEoB9jCjOI/AAAAAAAAC5k/daRnstnWPJE/Agnostic%252520v%252520Gnostic%252520v%252520Athei st%252520v%252520Theist.png

I hold the belief that I really don't know. I don't even know if this world is real. This could be a virtual reality simulator. Could there be a God in *that* world, that is simulating ours? I don't know. What if the true answer is something humans can't even fathom?

Yet, I think it's plausible that a God exists. Or some sort of creator. So if I had to box myself in, I'd say I'm an Agnostic-theist.

But yet, I feel the term "agnostic" sort of implies that. You are leaving open the possibility that there could be a God. The difference between "Agnostic Theist" and "Agnostic Atheist" is a matter of degrees. I don't think putting people into those boxes is very helpful. I think more of a spectrum, rather than an X/Y axis, would be better.



< 100% Atheist - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - 100% Theist >

Then again, there's flaws to that too. I guess any sort of diagram will have flaws. Whateva.

[RazorBaLade]

If God exists, would he really be so petty as to condemn people to an eternity of pain just because they didn't believe in him?

i don't know if any religion actually goes along with this (hell actually doesn't really go along with most religions either) but one of the ideas can be that God simply made us as a test subject.... It was for fun. To see how thin he could stretch us on the make us smart and logical vs being told what to believe and see how far that can go until either he decides to end the world and reward those who did believe or whatever.

The eternity of pain thing is from Dante's inferno... The new testament barely says anything about it and the old testament doesn't have a hell. I think.

[dee-rose]

i don't know if any religion actually goes along with this (hell actually doesn't really go along with most religions either) but one of the ideas can be that God simply made us as a test subject.... It was for fun. To see how thin he could stretch us on the make us smart and logical vs being told what to believe and see how far that can go until either he decides to end the world and reward those who did believe or whatever.

The eternity of pain thing is from Dante's inferno... The new testament barely says anything about it and the old testament doesn't have a hell. I think.
This wasn't a response to the idea of heaven and hell existing. It was to the post that Bladers made stating that if God exists, atheists would be going to hell. As far as the theory goes, isn't that a bit petty too? I would classify myself as an agnostic atheist but I don't think that religious people deserve to be condemned for "believing". Anyways, wouldn't he be giving religion a major head start, considering how it's pretty much institutionalized in every society, and not believing in God publicly has only recently become tolerable?

[donald_trump]

can you be sure he does exist bladers?

[War Machine]

Haha because a consensual relationship between people of the same sex is in any way remotely related to killing another human being or destroying the life of a child. The issue is the action itself, not if they were born with it or not that makes it bad.

No matter one's opinion, the - FACT - remains, two men and/or two women can not reproduce. Therefore, by fact, that only slows down evolution. So all these hippy so-called progressive ass wipes who think fighting for gay rights, or letting gay couples adopt children is for the best, need to reconsider the FACTS once again.

It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that man + man = stupid as shit.

[joe]

No matter one's opinion, the - FACT - remains, two men and/or two women can not reproduce. Therefore, by fact, that only slows down evolution. So all these hippy so-called progressive ass wipes who think fighting for gay rights, or letting gay couples adopt children is for the best, need to reconsider the FACTS once again.

It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that man + man = stupid as shit.

An individual not reproducing doesn't slow down evolution, that IS evolution. The point is, some people reproduce and others don't. If everyone reproduced, evolution would not exist.

And how does the fact that gay people can't reproduce, equal they shouldn't have rights? What about females with Ovarian cancer? Men born with blanks instead of sperm? Someone whose ***** was chopped off at birth?

Should those people not have rights?

[Simple Jack]

No matter one's opinion, the - FACT - remains, two men and/or two women can not reproduce. Therefore, by fact, that only slows down evolution. So all these hippy so-called progressive ass wipes who think fighting for gay rights, or letting gay couples adopt children is for the best, need to reconsider the FACTS once again.

It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that man + man = stupid as shit.

It may be a defect, but that's irrelevant. The idiot was comparing it to serial killers and other heinous acts committed by seriously deranged individuals. 2 people of the same sex deciding to engage in a relationship does not affect us nor does it present a danger to society.

Medicine slows down evolution too. Saving someone because of chemicals who were otherwise too weak to sustain live by themselves follows that logic as well. Do we stop giving people medicine and call people who take it hippy so-called progressive ass wipes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIsJGoNqRs

As long as I'm not getting approached by gay people in a sexually obnoxious way, it's cool. They deserve the same rights we do.

[War Machine]

can you be sure he does exist bladers?

He can't be sure, and if he says he is, then he's lying. There is no way that one's faith in a creator or no creator (atheists) can be 100%. Whatever you believe, God or no God, takes faith either way.

That's one thing that pisses me off about atheists... is that they'll argue "all you have is faith" "your faith is stupid" "you don't follow facts, you follow faith" ... well, did it ever occur to you dumbass (speaking to you, the typical atheist - not donald trump the poster) that you not believing in God or a creator is also faith-based?

So there you go, way to own yourself.

:applause:

[RazorBaLade]

No matter one's opinion, the - FACT - remains, two men and/or two women can not reproduce. Therefore, by fact, that only slows down evolution. So all these hippy so-called progressive ass wipes who think fighting for gay rights, or letting gay couples adopt children is for the best, need to reconsider the FACTS once again.

It doesn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that man + man = stupid as shit.

It can be argued that a stoppage of reproduction is a completely natural and healthy way to keep the balance. Like how animals never really make each other go instinct, somehow there are always enough gazelles for lions even though lions kill them and don't really get hunted by anything else.

Maybe with population rising and resources consumed rising, same sex rises to keep population from going out of control AS quickly.

[War Machine]

It can be argued that a stoppage of reproduction is a completely natural and healthy way to keep the balance. Like how animals never really make each other go instinct, somehow there are always enough gazelles for lions even though lions kill them and don't really get hunted by anything else.

Maybe with population rising and resources consumed rising, same sex rises to keep population from going out of control AS quickly.

Please, spare me the population control bullshit. Fact remains, if we were all homosexual, there would be no progression to our existence. Plain and simple.

[War Machine]

A dick + another dick or man's booty hole = "BRRRRRR" buzzer ringing that equates to sorry, doesn't exactly work/fit, dumbass.

Dick + vag = DING! DING! DING! .. I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER JOHNNY!

:oldlol:

Come on, you morons really think you can make a legit argument that homosexuals in our society is a positive measure towards human progression?

:rolleyes:

My goodness. It's so sad. Most of you in favor of same sex marriage, allowing same sex couples (especially men, GROSS!!!!! My God, how fu*king gross!) to adopt children, etc. is helpful for soceity is beyond sickening.

There's no logic behind it, yet you support it. With or without no God, or morals, mother nature herself tells you to STFU and GTFO with that shit, yet you assholes want to argue in favor of it.

:facepalm

A family is a mother and father, not too daddies. You sick fu*ks.

[War Machine]

Many of you morons are actually in your early college years, and you think you're honestly progressive in your thinking, thinking you know what's best, what's fair, what's right, when really, you don't know shit. Now, how about you all just STFU, huh? Learn a simple lesson in biology 101.

Dick + dick = decline of life.

Dick + vag = product of life.

:hammerhead:

Let's not over-think this one. It's rather simple, you simpletons.

[Nanners]

Many of you morons are actually in your early college years, and you think you're honestly progressive in your thinking, thinking you know what's best, what's fair, what's right, when really, you don't know shit. Now, how about you all just STFU, huh? Learn a simple lesson in biology 101.

Dick + dick = decline of life.

Dick + vag = product of life.

:hammerhead:

Let's not over-think this one. It's rather simple, you simpletons.

Busch league move Bladers. You are really gonna stoop to the rocketsgreatness defense? Create multiple accounts to agree with yourself and reinforce your idiot arguments.

Unbelievable irony that you would use "biology 101" to back up your argument, considering the chapter after reproduction is on evolution, a topic you reject without second thought. I guess its not that ironic considering how you selectively pick and chose which parts of the bible to follow based on what is convenient for your life and worldview.

[War Machine]

Busch league move Bladers. You are really gonna stoop to the rocketsgreatness defense? Create multiple accounts to agree with yourself and reinforce your idiot arguments.

Unbelievable irony that you would use "biology 101" to back up your argument, considering the chapter after reproduction is on evolution, a topic you reject without second thought. I guess its not that ironic considering how you selectively pick and chose which parts of the bible to follow based on what is convenient for your life and worldview.

OK, OKC guy. You got me! I'm Bladders. Still, you can't dispute my argument. Period. So instead of actually debating my point, you want to play the "ha! I got you, you snake in the grass" guess which poster I am game. Well, congratulations, way to go, you win the who is he game, yet you still fail to debunk my point.

[Nanners]

OK, OKC guy. You got me! I'm Bladders. Still, you can't dispute my argument. Period.

If you arent Bladers, my guess is LOJ.

Regardless of who you are, your argument is tired old crap. If you actually attended biology 101, you would know that there are multiple examples of homosexuality in nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals).


A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.

[Simple Jack]

A dick + another dick or man's booty hole = "BRRRRRR" buzzer ringing that equates to sorry, doesn't exactly work/fit, dumbass.

Dick + vag = DING! DING! DING! .. I THINK WE HAVE A WINNER JOHNNY!

:oldlol:

Come on, you morons really think you can make a legit argument that homosexuals in our society is a positive measure towards human progression?

:rolleyes:

My goodness. It's so sad. Most of you in favor of same sex marriage, allowing same sex couples (especially men, GROSS!!!!! My God, how fu*king gross!) to adopt children, etc. is helpful for soceity is beyond sickening.

There's no logic behind it, yet you support it. With or without no God, or morals, mother nature herself tells you to STFU and GTFO with that shit, yet you assholes want to argue in favor of it.

:facepalm

A family is a mother and father, not too daddies. You sick fu*ks.

The only sick **** here is you, you ignorant idiot. Daddy abuse you when you were younger? Such hate towards a group of people who likely have done nothing to affect your life beside challenge what you believe in. A positive measure towards human progression is to abandon all forms of religion and stick with logic and reasoning when it comes to issues that are bigger than ourselves rather than putting our belief in something we can't prove. In no other aspect in our life do we just assume something is ok, because we "believe" it to be. Imagine the weather man or your doctor told you that it was going to rain, or that you'd be ok because he just had a feeling about it. You wouldn't take them seriously...yet on a scale much larger than ourselves it's ok to just assume these things? Because of a book, written by man thousands of years ago? Wonderful.

Somehow same sex marriage is affecting Warmachine and society so deeply yet believing in talking snakes/young earth/opposing stem cell research/wars all in the name of religion is benefitting us right? **** outta here.

[Myth]

Since you believe people are born gays and lesbian then so are pedos and rapist and serial killlers, etc.

So why punish them for something they were born with? Why is the latter a crime and not the former?

Wow, you are a moron. Being gay or lesbian does not harm anybody. The things they do are consensual. Raping people and killing people does do people harm.

[RazorBaLade]

Please, spare me the population control bullshit. Fact remains, if we were all homosexual, there would be no progression to our existence. Plain and simple.

So you've changed your stance now. Okay I'll shut this down as well.

yes, if we were all homosexual there would be (arguably) no progression to our existence. (arguably because of artificial shit but we'll ignore that)

A completely hypothetical slippery slope situation that is NOT based in reality and can NEVER happen should not prevent a number of people from being happy and everyone else to "progress" humanity. Just like we shouldn't forbid suicide if a guy just saw his family gunned down and he had no reason to live anymore on the grounds of well if everyone commited suicide humanity would die it. Thats simply retarded. Honestly you sound like a closet homosexual yourself with that argument. "If we let SOMEONE do it, I'll start eating ***** myself and then we'll all die" get a grip son. We won't be driven to extinction because 1 million dudes out of 8 billion like *****'s.

2 adults by law have the desire to live lawfully in any way they want. Period. Do you think that we should simply euthanize all people with testicular cancer, or ovaries, or birth defects like shooting blanks? They don't procreate so they are useless, right?

[Stuckey]

bladers trolling you guys hard

[N0Skillz]

Anyone remember the thread where Warmachine said he kissed a guy?

[RazorBaLade]

Anyone remember the thread where Warmachine said he kissed a guy?

hes displaying all signs of closet homosexuality

i would not be surprised if that was true

[rufuspaul]

I see the fireballs in the air from the witches that were casting spells against the ministry. I'll see people slither across the ground like a snake and their eyes turn completely yellow before being delivered.


Shrooms are powerful shit man.

[-p.tiddy-]

lol, what we have here in this thread is are a few posters that have gone through life claiming to be athiests, and now are finding out that they aren't athiests really, and they are having a hard time admitting it...


an "AGNOSTIC-atheist" is an agnostic...that leans toward atheism

an "AGNOSTIC-theist" is an agnostic...that leans toward theism

^^^ at their core, both of these people admitt they "DO NOT KNOW"...both of these people are agnostic FIRST for that reason

an agnostic-theist might say "I beleive there is something greater out there than this universe, I think there is more...but I'm not sure really, It's just a gut feeling"

an agnostic-athiest might say "I don't beleive there is anything other than this universe, and we just are here out of luck, but that is just my gut feeling I could be wrong"

^^^ but both of those people are still agnostics...at their core "THEY DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW"...and that makes them agnostic

[Nanners]

lol, what we have here in this thread is are a few posters that have gone through life claiming to be athiests, and now are finding out that they aren't athiests really, and they are having a hard time admitting it...


an "AGNOSTIC-atheist" is an agnostic...that leans toward atheism

an "AGNOSTIC-theist" is an agnostic...that leans toward theism

^^^ at their core, both of these people admitt they "DO NOT KNOW"...both of these people are agnostic FIRST for that reason

an agnostic-theist might say "I beleive there is something greater out there than this universe, I think there is more...but I'm not sure really, It's just a gut feeling"

an agnostic-athiest might say "I don't beleive there is anything other than this universe, and we just are here out of luck, but that is just my gut feeling I could be wrong"

^^^ but both of those people are still agnostics...at their core "THEY DON'T CLAIM TO KNOW"...and that makes them agnostic

No they arent. These posters simply have a different definition of athiesm than you do. You participating in your favorite type of argument right now, one based on pointless semantics.

[Hazard]

I didn't read the thread, but no shit, obviously you cant be sure. The problem with creationists is that they claim to know for a fact god exists, which is a gigantic load of bullshit.

Great song lyric addressing those dumb ****s:

You're no medium
Just the scum on the shallow end of assumption
Time to come correct, son

[-p.tiddy-]

No they arent. These posters simply have a different definition of athiesm than you do. You participating in your favorite type of argument right now, one based on pointless semantics.
no, one based on the real definition and not a made up "personal" one

[Nanners]

no, one based on the real definition and not a made up "personal" one


So you say that you are arguing over the definition of words, and yet you are not arguing semantics.

Semantics (noun)
1. The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".

[Take Your Lumps]

Agnostic/Gnostic == knowledge

Atheist/Theist == belief

For ****'s sake, they're not mutually exclusive...these words deal with different things. This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

If you can disassociate yourself with the colloquial definitions of these words for just a minute and accept these words for what they are and how they are actually defined, you might learn something.

[-p.tiddy-]

So you say that you are arguing over the definition of words, and yet you are not arguing semantics.

Semantics (noun)
1. The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff".
I am saying that if you admitt you "don't really know" or "aren't sure" then you are an AGNOSTIC first and foremost

which direction you lean is secondary

[Nanners]

I am saying that if you admitt you "don't really know" or "aren't sure" then you are an AGNOSTIC first and foremost

which direction you lean is secondary

You are saying that your definition is the right way to classify beliefs. Other people are saying that they have always classified their own beliefs in a different way. YOU ARE ARGUING SEMANTICS, DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, NOTHING MORE.

Nobody is "having a hard time admitting" anything (other than you admitting that you are arguing semantics) as you claim in your earlier post.

[Brunch@Five]

respecting gays and not condemning them is a different thing from granting them state benefits by letting them marry.
The institution of marriage has been sustained for this long because it benefits society in terms of reproduction and education. Gay marriage does not benefit society as a whole. Thus, I think it is acceptable for the state to say "we do not grant gay couples extra rights and tax benefits like we do to heterosexual couples". This is assuming that marriage DOES grant extra rights and benefits. If marriage was a solely symbolic institution, there is no reason to preclude gays from it.
Is it discrimination? Yes. Is there a rational argument for it? Yes. What prevents me from marrying my dorm-mate just to enjoy tax benefits?

anyhow, if some day governmen decides to abolish marriage altogether and just grant benefits to couples/triples/singles with kids, I'm okay with this too.

[Hazard]

respecting gays and not condemning them is a different thing from granting them state benefits by letting them marry.
The institution of marriage has been sustained for this long because it benefits society in terms of reproduction and education. Gay marriage does not benefit society as a whole. Thus, I think it is acceptable for the state to say "we do not grant gay couples extra rights and tax benefits like we do to heterosexual couples". This is assuming that marriage DOES grant extra rights and benefits. If marriage was a solely symbolic institution, there is no reason to preclude gays from it.
Is it discrimination? Yes. Is there a rational argument for it? Yes. What prevents me from marrying my dorm-mate just to enjoy tax benefits?

anyhow, if some day governmen decides to abolish marriage altogether and just grant benefits to couples/triples/singles with kids, I'm okay with this too.
What if the gay couple adopts?

[Nanners]

What prevents me from marrying my dorm-mate just to enjoy tax benefits?


What prevents you from marrying a random woman from your dorm just to enjoy tax benefits? If this whole marriage for tax benefits thing was going to be a problem, wouldnt it already be common among hetero couples?

[Brunch@Five]

What prevents you from marrying a random woman from your dorm just to enjoy tax benefits? If this whole marriage for tax benefits thing was going to be a problem, wouldnt it already be common among hetero couples?

point taken. In the end, granting benefits for being married should be abolished altogether. If you have kids, the state should support you.


What if the gay couple adopts?

I see no reason for gay couples not being allowed to adopt kids. If they do, see my point above.

[Hazard]

point taken. In the end, granting benefits for being married should be abolished altogether. If you have kids, the state should support you.



I see no reason for gay couples not being allowed to adopt kids. If they do, see my point above.
Good point, I agree with that.

[Is He Ill]

I am saying that if you admitt you "don't really know" or "aren't sure" then you are an AGNOSTIC first and foremost

which direction you lean is secondary

Says who? You? Whether or not you are an gnostic atheist or agnostic atheist, you're still a ****ing atheist. Someones belief in something is quite different than admitting their inability to know for certain. There is not one person on this planet that can know how the multiverse was created, and if they claim to know than they are full of s***. Religious theists "don't really know" the truth either, yet they fool themselves into pretending that they do.

[-p.tiddy-]

You are saying that your definition is the right way to classify beliefs. Other people are saying that they have always classified their own beliefs in a different way. YOU ARE ARGUING SEMANTICS, DEFINITIONS OF WORDS, NOTHING MORE.

Nobody is "having a hard time admitting" anything (other than you admitting that you are arguing semantics) as you claim in your earlier post.
yes I am arguing over the def of agnostic...did you just need me to say that?

[-p.tiddy-]

Says who? You? Whether or not you are an gnostic atheist or agnostic atheist, you're still a ****ing atheist. Someones belief in something is quite different than admitting their inability to know for certain. There is not one person on this planet that can know how the multiverse was created, and if they claim to know than they are full of s***. Religious theists "don't really know" the truth either, yet they fool themselves into pretending that they do.
says the real definition

it is an "AGNOSTIC-athiest"...for a reason...the athiest part is secondary...the agnostic is first

[-p.tiddy-]

I'm an atheist.

I don't know why you can't grasp the idea that you can believe something, but understand the opposite viewpoint.

I believe the Vietnam war was justified... But others don't.
I believe in Santa Claus... But there's no proof.
I believe in ghosts... But I've never seen one.
I don't believe in God... But there could be one.
I believe that OJ is not guilty... But there's always a chance that he did kill his wife.

There's multiple sides to every belief and opinion, and there's nothing wrong with seeing validity in other's arguments... That doesn't change your belief.
yeah those comparisons are bad

that red example = AGNOSTIC an "AGNOSTIC-athiest" to be exact

I guess the other examples are "agnostic" as well in terms of just comparison

[-p.tiddy-]

in your comparisons Murder:



there is pretty much scientific proof of no Santa Claus though...I would be 100% athiest on that one :oldlol: ....I KNOW there is no Santa...I have 100% faith

AGNOSTIC-thiest on ghosts...I beleive in spirits but not sure

Vietnam justified I am just agnostic period...I don't know what the world would be like today without it

OJ verdict I am AGNOSTIC-thiest...I believe he is guilty...not positive though



but other than Santa the others are AGNOSTIC beliefs at their core

[Bladers]

There's a big difference between being gay and a rapist or serial killer. I hope you see that there is

Not at all.. you can make a case that serial killers are born that way and can't help themselves but relish in seeing others die, in the same way you try to make a case that gays that born that way.

[Bladers]

Because pedos, rapists, and serial killers are not fit for our society. It's not about punishing them, it's about keeping them far away from the rest of us.

and gays are fit? The irony. If every one was gay there won't be any society.

[Bladers]

You can't prove a negative is basically what he's saying.
His stance on religion hasn't changed one bit, you can't prove that god doesn't exist, you also can't prove that there isn't a golden teapot behind the sun that has divine powers, but we both know the chances of said teapot existing are very slim.

Thats no true at all. Its like saying we can't prove the earth isn't flat.

Well we know how well that worked out. Proof of God exists, people just reject it. that's all.

[Bladers]

Uhh, being gay doesn't hurt anyone. Murder and rape does, that's why it's a crime. you must be a real dumbass not to figure that out on your own.

Where do you think AIDS came from? and many other sexual diease? Come on. you can't be that ignorant. :rolleyes:


or can you? :facepalm

[Is He Ill]

and gays are fit? The irony. If every one was gay there won't be any society.

Yet we are not all gay. Homosexuals pose absolutely no threat to society, so what's your point champ? Are you worried about yourself becoming one of them? They don't detract from your quality of life, so why funnel them in with pedos, serial killers, and rapists?

[Bladers]

The problem with the monotheistic religions is validity. Dawkins said it best when he said that most religious people are atheists when it comes to thor, zeus, or the flying spaghetti monster. Some people just go one god further.


Well thats because Dawkins isn't very bright or is at all.

The exact definition of atheist is the belief that "god" in what so ever shape or form) does not exist.

Atheist ism is not the definition of what God is.
Is the definition of there is no God. Period.

Secondly thor, zeus, or the flying spaghetti monster... etc are myths. But I don't think you or dawkin have the intelligence to recognize that.

[Bladers]

Atheism doesn't have the burden of proof.

That's the biggest lie since eden.

But I will give you that if you want.
But then you have to accept that Atheism is a faith based belief system.

[Bladers]

Haha because a consensual relationship between people of the same sex is in any way remotely related to killing another human being or destroying the life of a child. The issue is the action itself, not if they were born with it or not that makes it bad.

So when a under aged girl (say 14) consents to sex with an older male (say 21) its okay???

So the whole "Why don't you have a seat right over there?" is overblown?

According to you if its consensual then its alright? right? If we bend rules to let gays and lesbians slide then we also have to bend the same rules to let pedophiles and child offenders slide.

[Is He Ill]

Well thats because Dawkins isn't very bright or is at all.

The exact definition of atheist is the belief that "god" in what so ever shape or form) does not exist.

Atheist ism is not the definition of what God is.
Is the definition of there is no God. Period.

Secondly thor, zeus, or the flying spaghetti monster... etc are myths. But I don't think you or dawkin have the intelligence to recognize that.

So all of the other religions had it wrong and somehow your religion's people managed to get it right? Well aren't you guys so special.

[Bladers]

If God exists, would he really be so petty as to condemn people to an eternity of pain just because they didn't believe in him?

Is that why you have a justice system that tortues, kills people or sentence them to life in prison or the death penalty?


Ask your self. WHY DO YOU HAVE LAWS and WHY DO YOU HAVE PUNISHMENT WHEN PEOPLE BREAK THOSE LAWS?

If you are against God for having a justice system, then what do you make of your own?

[Bladers]

An individual not reproducing doesn't slow down evolution, that IS evolution. The point is, some people reproduce and others don't. If everyone reproduced, evolution would not exist.

And how does the fact that gay people can't reproduce, equal they shouldn't have rights? What about females with Ovarian cancer? Men born with blanks instead of sperm? Someone whose ***** was chopped off at birth?

Should those people not have rights?

The Question isn't whether or not they have rights. The question is whether or not they are RIGHT!

[Is He Ill]

says the real definition

it is an "AGNOSTIC-athiest"...for a reason...the athiest part is secondary...the agnostic is first

You're right, a red 2012 Dodge Durango is first and foremost red, therefore it is simply a color and not a 2012 Dodge Durango at all.

The only reason the word agnostic is in the front in that case is because it's an adjective describing a noun. An agnostic atheist is first and foremost an atheist that also happens to claim that they have no certainty in his/her knowledge of the creation of the universe/multiverse.

[Bladers]

It may be a defect, but that's irrelevant. The idiot was comparing it to serial killers and other heinous acts committed by seriously deranged individuals. 2 people of the same sex deciding to engage in a relationship does not affect us nor does it present a danger to society.

Medicine slows down evolution too. Saving someone because of chemicals who were otherwise too weak to sustain live by themselves follows that logic as well. Do we stop giving people medicine and call people who take it hippy so-called progressive ass wipes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldIsJGoNqRs

As long as I'm not getting approached by gay people in a sexually obnoxious way, it's cool. They deserve the same rights we do.

The millions of people dead by sexual disease says otherwise.

[Hazard]

Thats no true at all. Its like saying we can't prove the earth isn't flat.

Well we know how well that worked out. Proof of God exists, people just reject it. that's all.
And by reject it you mean explain it with science.

Where do you think AIDS came from? and many other sexual diease? Come on. you can't be that ignorant.
Yet another uneducated assumption. AIDS is diagnosed when people with HIV get infections that their infected immune system cannot defend against.

HIV originated in Africa. People would hunt Chimpanzees for food, the monkeys had a similar disease called SIV, when that was transmitted to humans it became HIV.
Source, you ****ing dumbass. (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/#origin)

[Bladers]

can you be sure he does exist bladers?

Yes you can be.

[-p.tiddy-]

You're right, a red 2012 Dodge Durango is first and foremost red, therefore it is simply a color and not a 2012 Dodge Durango at all.

The only reason the word agnostic is in the front in that case is because it's an adjective describing a noun. An agnostic atheist is first and foremost an atheist that also happens to claim that they have no certainty in his/her knowledge of the creation of the universe/multiverse.
:oldlol:

you're 100% wrong

awful comparison with the red truck btw

[Hazard]

Yes you can be.
I missed the conversation, are you talking about the Easter Bunny? That mother****er owes me 20 bucks, tell him to pay up or I'll break his legs.

[Is He Ill]

:oldlol:

you're 100% wrong

awful comparison with the red truck btw

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

Agnostic-asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

[Bladers]

Yet another uneducated assumption. AIDS is diagnosed when people with HIV get infections that their infected immune system cannot defend against.

HIV originated in Africa. People would hunt Chimpanzees for food, the monkeys had a similar disease called SIV, when that was transmitted to humans it became HIV.
Source, you ****ing dumbass. (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/#origin)

Actually that has been proven to be false.

[-p.tiddy-]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

Agnostic-asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
EXACTLY!

an agnostic is uncertain

[Hazard]

Actually that has been proven to be false.
Source?

[Is He Ill]

Actually that has been proven to be false.

Proof?

[Is He Ill]

EXACTLY!

an agnostic is uncertain

We already had that part nailed down.

[Nanners]

yes I am arguing over the def of agnostic...did you just need me to say that?

Yeah, I did need you to say that. Earlier you were making out like your "arguments" were some sort of intellectual revelation that the people who consider themselves "athiests" are unable to handle, so im glad you acknowledge you were just quibbling over pointless semantics. Admitting when you are wrong is important, its something you in particular need more practice with.


lol, what we have here in this thread is are a few posters that have gone through life claiming to be athiests, and now are finding out that they aren't athiests really, and they are having a hard time admitting it...

You remember when you said that? This stupid post was the only reason I responded to you in the first place.

[Hazard]

For many years scientists theorized as to the origins of HIV and how it appeared in the human population, most believing that HIV originated in other primates. Then in 1999, an international team of researchers reported that they had discovered the origins of HIV-1, the predominant strain of HIV in the developed world. A subspecies of chimpanzees native to west equatorial Africa had been identified as the original source of the virus. The researchers believe that HIV-1 was introduced into the human population when hunters became exposed to infected blood.
I guess that's what he meant when he said that it was proven to be false. My bad it was a sub species of chimpanzee.
Many sources (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=where+did+hiv+come+from)

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeah, I did need you to say that. Earlier you were making out like your "arguments" were some sort of intellectual revelation that the people who consider themselves "athiests" are unable to handle



You remember when you said that? This stupid post was the only reason I responded to you in the first place.
It is true...there are many atheists that aren't atheist by definition...

Actually the vast majority of atheists out there only know they don't believe in the Bible and thats it lol.

[Nanners]

i dont know why i even bother

[Is He Ill]

i dont know why i even bother

:lol

[-p.tiddy-]

i dont know why i even bother
You must be bored...arguing nothing

[-p.tiddy-]

Look, if YOU AREN'T SURE...you are an agnostic first and foremost

Which way you lean is secondary to that...BY DEFINITION.

[sawyersauce]

Wow this thread is just incredible. :oldlol:

The patience some of you have is admirable. And I guess the persistence of the others is... well... it's persistent.

[Nanners]

You must be bored...arguing nothing

I dunno kinda.... are you bored? I am not the only one arguing about nothing. :oldlol:

[Quizno]

these kinds of threads always lead to people arguing over the definition of agnosticism. every single time :oldlol:

and nobody ever cares

[-p.tiddy-]

I dunno kinda.... are you bored? I am not the only one arguing about nothing. :oldlol:
I'm at work and bored yeah...but I am argueing the deinition of agnostic...like you said :D

do you want to argue about what I am arguing?

[-p.tiddy-]

No they aren't, you're just so damn black and white about something that is all grey.

If you don't believe them to be true, that's atheistic.You're just trying to change what believe means. When you believe, that means you've accepted that in your mind or accepted it as truth. You can do that and still be open to other ideas, damn.
if you are open to other ideas you are agnostic first and foremost...this isn't my definiton Professor this the real definiton

you are an athiest first and foremost if you don't beleive in higher power and are sure of it

[Nanners]

I'm at work and bored yeah...but I am argueing the deinition of agnostic...like you said :D

do you want to argue about what I am arguing?

slow day at work for me too. gotta find ways to occupy myself until the thunder game starts :oldlol:


heres what i think. there is a chance that a christian white male god with a beard exists and he made jesus and everything, but its equally likely that the universe was created by muhammad, or moses, or lord xenu, or the flying spaghetti monster, or raptor jesus, or just a random cascade of chemical reactions. I guess by your definition, that you make me agnostic, yet when I try to explain my point of view to most people they immediately say "Oh... so you are an athiest then."

[-p.tiddy-]

slow day at work for me too. gotta find ways to occupy myself until the thunder game starts :oldlol:


heres what i think. there is a chance that a christian white male god with a beard exists and he made jesus and everything, but its equally likely that the universe was created by the flying spaghetti monster, or lord xenu, or raptor jesus, or just a random cascade of chemical reactions. I guess by your definition, that you make me agnostic, yet when I try to explain my point of view to most people they immediately say "Oh... so you are an athiest then."
it isn't my definiton, it is THE definition...and it doesn't have anything to do with Jesus or spaghetti monsters or xenu...it has to do with believing there is NOTHING else...or being open to other things



you make the mistake that other so called athiests make in assuming the only option for "god" is a bearded white man in the clouds...and that logical explainations don't exist.

[LJJ]

Primetime again trying to change the definition of atheism. :facepalm

Everybody keeps telling him that this is not the way the English language works. Atheism is supposed to be the opposite of theism, hence the 'a' prefix. Theism is the belief in a single deity. The opposite of belief is non-belief, not whatever nonsensical babble he makes of it.

But no, everybody with common sense is simply wrong in primetime's eyes. He is the expert after all. It's not like he's some guy on a messageboard who has been exposed as an idiot time again and again by every other poster here.

[-p.tiddy-]

Primetime again trying to change the definition of atheism. :facepalm

Everybody keeps telling him that this is not the way the English language works. Atheism is supposed to be the opposite of theism, hence the 'a' prefix. Theism is the belief in a single deity. The opposite of belief is non-belief, not whatever nonsensical babble he makes of it.

But no, everybody with common sense is simply wrong in primetime's eyes. He is the expert after all. It's not like he's some guy on a messageboard who has been exposed as an idiot time again and again by every other poster here.
for the 10th time...it isn't my definition it is the REAL definition

no one has exposed anything

[LJJ]

for the 10th time...it isn't my definition it is the REAL definition

no one has exposed anything

You are saying the opposite of belief in something is belief in something else.

That's idiotic.

That's like saying the opposite of eating a cake is eating a pie.

[-p.tiddy-]

You are saying the opposite of belief in something is belief in something else.

That's idiotic.

That's like saying the opposite of eating a cake is eating a pie.
wtf are you talking about?

:facepalm

[-p.tiddy-]

I post the real definition to agnostic and here comes little LJJ to tell me the definition is wrong

"cake is not pie!" :oldlol:





Nanners, this is what I was talking about...many people that claim to be athiest don't like finding out that by defintion they aren't athiests...they are agnostic

[LJJ]

wtf are you talking about?

:facepalm

I thought putting it in the most simple way possible would even make it possible for a dunce as yourself to grasp basic logic.

I underestimated you primetime. :applause:

[Nanners]

it isn't my definiton, it is THE definition...and it doesn't have anything to do with Jesus or spaghetti monsters or xenu...it has to do with believing there is NOTHING else...or being open to other things



you make the mistake that other so called athiests make in assuming the only option for "god" is a bearded white man in the clouds...and that logical explainations don't exist.

take a second to actually read my posts you 9th grade reading comprehension having jenkhead. show me where i said that i think i am an athiest. i said atheist is what my coworkers and friends call me when i try to explain my views, and i was trying to make you realize that maybe a large part of society does not define their beliefs the same way that you do. i dont know many people with your level of knowledge of the strict black and white definitions of athiesm and agnostiscm.

there probably is more to the universe and life than some random occurance of science, and there most likely is some sort of supernatural force or "god". since we cant prove anything, society should just stop trying to run other peoples lives based ancient mainstream beliefs, and let people believe whatever they want (as long as it isnt directly harming anybody else)

how exactly am i making the same mistakes as other athiests when i am entirely open to the possibility of god in any form? there are no logical explanations when it comes to belief. the entire concept of belief is based around believing in something that you cannot ever prove, and is therefore not logical in nature.

[-p.tiddy-]

take a second to actually read my posts you 9th grade reading comprehension having jenkhead. show me where i said that i think i am an athiest. i said that is what my coworkers and friends call me when i try to explain my views, and elluding to the fact that maybe a large part of society does not define their beliefs the same way that you do. i dont know many people with your level of knowledge of the strict black and white definitions of athiesm and agnostiscm.

there probably is more to the universe and life than some random occurance of science, and there most likely is some sort of supernatural force or "god". since we cant prove anything, society should just stop trying to run other peoples lives based ancient mainstream beliefs, and let people believe whatever they want (as long as it isnt directly harming anybody else)

how exactly am i making the same mistakes as other athiests when i am entirely open to the possibility of god in any form? there are no logical explanations when it comes to belief. the entire concept of belief is based around believing in something that you cannot ever prove, and is therefore not logical in nature.
okay, we were just arguing semantics remember...not your personal views.

[-p.tiddy-]

okay I am just beating a dead horse at this point...so I'll just leave you two with this...AGAIN


Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

[QUOTE]Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims

[N0Skillz]

Not at all.. you can make a case that serial killers are born that way and can't help themselves but relish in seeing others die, in the same way you try to make a case that gays that born that way.


Well you can make the case that being christian is worse then being gay or a serial killer. Christians just can't help themselves to just follow their own ideals and relish in seeing others condemned to the point of suicide. In the same way you can try to make a case Christians are born that way.

I mean think about it, you didn't choose to be christian because after reading the bible god spoke to you. You became christian because you were told to be christian and harass others who see things differently then you do.

Technically I don't think you can even call yourself christian. Most of the christians I know follow the teachings of christ something you have obviously thrown out.

[Nanners]

its like arguing about the definition of the word f*ag. most of society thinks that f*ag is a derogatory term against gays, but primetime would argue that the true definition of f*ag is bundle of sticks or cigarette or something, and therefore any time a gay person gets pissed off for being called a f*ag they are being irrational.

[-p.tiddy-]

its like arguing about the definition of the word f*ag. most of society thinks that f*ag is a derogatory term against gays, but primetime would argue that the true definition of f*ag is bundle of sticks or cigarette or something, and therefore any time a gay person gets pissed off for being called a f*ag they are being irrational.
BS

I posted THE REAL DEFINTION

not my own defintion...THE REAL ONE



holy shit...athiesm isn't slang

[-p.tiddy-]

Nnaners apparently you are an agnostic and your coworkers are wrong...and you accept it as being wrong though

I don't even see where you disagree with my defintion, you're just arguing to argue

[Nanners]

BS

I posted THE REAL DEFINTION

not my own defintion...THE REAL ONE



holy shit...athiesm isn't slang

its identical. why dont go you look up the REAL DEFINITION of f*ag, you f*ag.

1. a cigarette
2. an english public school boy who acts as a servant to to older schoolmates
3. toil, drudgery

the real definition of a word and the way its commonly used in society are two different things, and yes, we are still arguing semantics :oldlol:

[-p.tiddy-]

its identical. why dont go you look up the REAL DEFINITION of f*ag, you f*ag.

1. a cigarette
2. an english public school boy who acts as a servant to to older schoolmates
3. toil, drudgery

the real definition of a word and the way its commonly used in society are two different things, and yes, we are still arguing semantics :oldlol:
"***" is slang for homosexual...and everyone understands that it is slang...athiests that claim to be athiest don't really view it as slang

although maybe you do have a point...perhaps "athiest" has become slang for "I don't beleive in the Bible" to most people...it has taken on a new meaning, maybe I should just accept it

[Nanners]

although maybe you do have a point...perhaps "athiest" has become slang for "I don't beleive in the Bible" to most people...it has taken on a new meaning, maybe I should just accept it


this is the point i am trying to make. for most people i know, atheism is not the specific position that there absolutely is no god, but rather a blanket statement for the rejection of mainstream religion.

also, i dont think that i personally know a single person who considers themself to be a hardcore atheist with the position that god absolutely does not exist. the vast majority of atheists are probably agnostic by the strict definition.

[-p.tiddy-]

this is the point i am trying to make. for most people i know, atheism is not the specific position that there absolutely is no god, but rather a blanket statement for the rejection of mainstream religion.
lol but that is the exact same point I was trying to make in here...that most athiests are wrong in their definition of what an athiest is

I guess I need to just accept it like you have...but it just irks me a bit that so many that claim athiests are really agnostic by definition

[Nanners]

lol but that is the exact same point I was trying to make in here...that most athiests are wrong in their definition of what an athiest is

I guess I need to just accept it like you have...but it just irks me a bit that so many that claim athiests are really agnostic by definition


dont get too bent out of shape over how other people and society define and label themselves. whether you are called an atheist or agnostic has no bearing on what you actually believe.

[RoseCity07]

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f80/rufuspaul/jesusumad.jpg

lol

[Is He Ill]

I believe there is no god, but I realize I could of course be wrong. You can call me whatever you want, I don't really give a shit. I'm guessing you would call me agnostic. But what about a guy who believes in God, goes to church, reads his bible but is reasonable enough to realize he could be wrong. Is he agnostic too?

Of course, because like father Primetime said, he is first and foremost an agnostic. That man right there would soon be burning in the pits.

[-p.tiddy-]

I believe there is no god, but I realize I could of course be wrong. You can call me whatever you want, I don't really give a shit. I'm guessing you would call me agnostic. But what about a guy who believes in God, goes to church, reads his bible but is reasonable enough to realize he could be wrong. Is he agnostic too?
like a Christian without faith or something?

yeah, that person would be agnostic by definition...although, he isn't really a true Christian either if he is questioning his beliefs


and Ill is right, he is likely going to hell lol...Jesus needs faith

[-p.tiddy-]

He has faith, he just realizes it's possible he's wrong.
Then he doesn't really have faith

[joe]

So he acknowledges it's impossible to know for sure there is a god, since it IS impossible to know for sure. This means he has no faith and he doesn't actually believe what he believes?

This is why I think a spectrum is better.

No Faith in God < --------------------------------------- > Total faith in God

The man you described might be here

No Faith in God < ------------------------------------x--- > Total faith in God

[Simple Jack]

So when a under aged girl (say 14) consents to sex with an older male (say 21) its okay???

So the whole "Why don't you have a seat right over there?" is overblown?

According to you if its consensual then its alright? right? If we bend rules to let gays and lesbians slide then we also have to bend the same rules to let pedophiles and child offenders slide.

Holy shit you are stupid.

[-p.tiddy-]

So he acknowledges it's impossible to know for sure there is a god, since it IS impossible to know for sure. This means he has no faith and he doesn't actually believe what he believes?
well I have Christians in my family, they KNOW Jesus is real...for them to question their faith would be a bad thing.

Is this a friend of yours or just a scenerio you are dreaming up?...There aren't too many people "of faith" that don't really have faith...your example sounds like someone that wants to be Christian but isn't quite there yet.

[RidonKs]

Is this a friend of yours or just a scenerio you are dreaming up?...There aren't too many people "of faith" that don't really have faith...your example sounds like someone that wants to be Christian but isn't quite there yet.

this is absolutely not true, at least as far as i've ever discerned. particularly in the parts of the US where atheism still struggles to even gain legitimacy, religiosity is very often played up for social rather than theological reasons. i've read more than enough studies and polls that compare answers to questions like "are you a christian?" with "do you go to church?" to make that implication... that of course was the simplest example i could summon off the top of my head, but there are obviously more nuanced versions out there.

casual christianity is undoubtedly a real and in fact quite abundant phenomenon.

[-p.tiddy-]

this is absolutely not true, at least as far as i've ever discerned. particularly in the parts of the US where atheism still struggles to even gain legitimacy, religiosity is very often played up for social rather than theological reasons. i've read more than enough studies and polls that compare answers to questions like "are you a christian?" with "do you go to church?" to make that implication... that of course was the simplest example i could summon off the top of my head, but there are obviously more nuanced versions out there.

casual christianity is undoubtedly a real and in fact quite abundant phenomenon.
oh for sure...but I am not sure I would call people like that Christians...those are just kids that go to church because thier parents make them.

the Christian that claims to be Christian but never prays or knows ANY of the Bible...?...yeah I would think in reality those aren't really Christians even though they claim to be.

[RidonKs]

oh for sure...but I am not sure I would call people like that Christians...those are just kids that go to church because thier parents make them.

the Christian that claims to be Christian but never prays or knows ANY of the Bible...?...yeah I would think in reality those aren't really Christians even though they claim to be.
and i would say that your decision to characterize somebody as either "christian" or "not christian" based on your own interpretation of the intensity or forcefulness of their belief is incredibly foolish and actually quite arrogant of you.

the range of christian believers does not start and stop at 0 and 1. many many different kinds and your classification would offend... most of them i'm guessing.

[heyhey]

and i would say that your decision to characterize somebody as either "christian" or "not christian" based on your own interpretation of the intensity or forcefulness of their belief is incredibly foolish and actually quite arrogant of you.

the range of christian believers does not start and stop at 0 and 1. many many different kinds and your classification would offend... most of them i'm guessing.

eh I think pdiddy has a point. i agree wit u that there's a spectrum of belief. but there needs to be some baseline before people should refer to themselves as "christian" or a particular denomination of it.

Christian doesn't just mean belief in god but also follower or at least knowlege of certain tenets of the bible. To claim to be christian but not follow or believe in christian customs/book is flawed. because while you may believe in god but you don't believe in the christian institutionalization of god.. and to me that's not a christian. a theist certainly but not christian

the delineation between religions like islam, christianity, and judaism lie within the finer details. so without knowledge of that how can you affiliate with any one of them?

[RidonKs]

the delineation between religions like islam, christianity, and judaism lie within the finer details. so without knowledge of that how can you affiliate with any one of them?
c'mon. i think just about anybody in the world could distinguish the basic tenets and factoids of christianity from islam from judaism, at least in terms of 1st, 2nd, 3rd chronologically speaking, the main prophets, do unto others, don't eat pork, role of jerusulum in all three, etc, etc.

the mere fact that you know a few differences between biblical gospel and the qur'an and the torah... that doesn't seem like enough to designate somebody as a "true christian", if that is your aim. the global popularity of the religions predisposes them to widespread knowledge of their core features.

the question is where the line gets drawn... in other words, how much knowledge or understanding or theological wisdom is enough to qualify as a true believer? and must one necessarily relinquish any and all doubt insofar as those beliefs are questioned?



but more to the point, i'm of the personal belief that most self-proclamations of identity with a wider movement or group, could be the democratic party, could be anarchism, could be zoroastrianism, hell it could be the so called religion of science that primetime tends to rail against, railing that at least to a certain extent i think is validated by the hubris of scientific methodology... all of this shit is misplaced once you examine it enough. meaning if you were to ask somebody to self-identify using single words like the ones i mentioned, and then went about cross-examining them... you'd eventually uncover hypocrisies, double standards, logical fallacies, incompatibly held truisms, the whole lot. that's for the vaaast majority of mankind. it's our nature to group identify regardless of whether or not we truly 'belong'.

the 'christian' identifier is merely no different than anything else. hell christianity has a profound relationship with the philosophy of meekness, of forgiveness, of loving everybody and overlooking sin... i'm sure there are lots of christians out there who hold those tenets far above a steadfast doubtless belief in the dad-in-the-sky hypothesis or that the rcc gets to consult with god whenever it wants.

christianity in and of itself is ripe with contradictions, so to really follow it as honestly and devoutly as one could muster, you would have to willingly admit meaningless bullshit into your worldview... that would then have to exert some effect on your behaviour? or is it merely enough to preach this shit without actually practicing it?



like it said, i just don't think there's really a line that can be drawn, particularly with something as mystical as the popular organized religions around the world. too cloudy, holes can always be poked.

[-p.tiddy-]

and i would say that your decision to characterize somebody as either "christian" or "not christian" based on your own interpretation of the intensity or forcefulness of their belief is incredibly foolish and actually quite arrogant of you.

the range of christian believers does not start and stop at 0 and 1. many many different kinds and your classification would offend... most of them i'm guessing.
My own interpretation? If you dont REALLY believe in Christ then you aren't Christian.

I think that is everyone's interpretation lol...its not foolish its common sense.

[-p.tiddy-]

I think today ill be a Muslim...just today though.

My faith is strong.

[creepingdeath]

Yet they more I read of Bladers the more I question how a supreme being could have created him.

:roll:

[RidonKs]

My own interpretation? If you dont REALLY believe in Christ then you aren't Christian.

I think that is everyone's interpretation lol...its not foolish its common sense.
you're a lost cause lol

[-p.tiddy-]

you're a lost cause lol
love these default give up posts...lol

in other words...

"you're right -pt-, if you don't believe in Christ you're not a Christian, and I can't despute that"

[rufuspaul]

love these default give up posts...lol

in other words...

"you're right -pt-, if you don't believe in Christ you're not a Christian, and I can't despute that"

What's your prize for winning?

[highwhey]

you're a lost cause lol
:applause:

[-p.tiddy-]

Check it Donks:

[QUOTE]Chris

[-p.tiddy-]

What's your prize for winning?
you're a Catholic right?...correct?

would you say that someone that doesn't believe in Christ or Mary but goes to church for their parents is a real Catholic?


please give an honest answer and not a "I hate -pt- anwser"



the prize is the same as always...being correct

[rufuspaul]

you're a Catholic right?...correct?

would you say that someone that doesn't believe in Christ or Mary but goes to church for their parents is a real Catholic?


please give an honest answer and not a "I hate -pt- anwser"



the prize is the same as always...being correct

Yeah I suppose it would be hard to call them a "real Catholic", but then again I'm not exactly certain what a real Catholic is. There's a lot about the Church I don't believe as far as papal decrees on morality (birth control, homosexuality, etc.) but the basic themes of the Gospel kinda seem important.

[rufuspaul]

the prize is the same as always...being correct


Such a heavy cross to bear.

[-p.tiddy-]

Yeah I suppose it would be hard to call them a "real Catholic", but then again I'm not exactly certain what a real Catholic is. There's a lot about the Church I don't believe as far as papal decrees on morality (birth control, homosexuality, etc.) but the basic themes of the Gospel kinda seem important.
well wouldn't a real Catholic just be someone that actually follows the teachings?

or is it arrogant for me to assume that?

[-p.tiddy-]

Jesus Christ guys (pun intenteded)...it's okay to admitt I am correct every now and then...really

[rufuspaul]

well wouldn't a real Catholic just be someone that actually follows the teachings?

or is it arrogant for me to assume that?


What are the real teachings? Catholicism has the problem of Vatican interpretation and expansion on what followers should believe that doesn't always jive with what followers actually practice. Take birth control for example. The Church says it's a sin although 98% of Catholics in this country use it.

[-p.tiddy-]

What are the real teachings? Catholicism has the problem of Vatican interpretation and expansion on what followers should believe that doesn't always jive with what followers actually practice. Take birth control for example. The Church says it's a sin although 98% of Catholics in this country use it.
Well I don't know about the real teachings...but isn't it safe to assume that a real Catholic has to buy into at least SOME of those teachings?

Can a child-teen that goes to church everyday but never gives any of the teachings any thought or actually buys into the existance of any of it really be called a Catholic?

[RidonKs]

love these default give up posts...lol

in other words...

"you're right -pt-, if you don't believe in Christ you're not a Christian, and I can't despute that"
goodness, you prattle on with the exact same talking points through about a dozen foes, each of whom inevitably give up once they realize you aren't processing a word they're saying.... and then you pat yourself on the bat for a debate well fought. just another case of your delusion.

i just wrote a couple paragraphs immediately above your post detailing what it actually means, according to REAL CHRISTIANS, as opposed to primetime (though i imagine you'd consider yourself more of the expert), to be a christian... and the bottom line is that it could mean many things. christianity is thousands of years old and its followers do not begin and end with people who take a literal interpretation of the holy trinity. rupaul is in this thread and he makes a great example of that.

and yet in response from you, i get... the exact same thing you had already written. reworded ever so slightly.

like i said, you're a lost cause. i'm not giving up on the argument, i'm giving up on you. sensibly i might add.

[RidonKs]

Check it Donks:



this is not MY interpretation...you can't reply with "you're hopless"...or "why do I bother"...that is THE REAL DEFINITION lol




this is twice now where posters have tried to dispute the actual meaning of things and act like I'm the fool for going by the real definition...

"but -pt-, that's like saying a f*g is a cigarette...but we all know a f*g is a homo!"


No...an actual Christian believes in Jesus...it isn't slang
this is a single definition. the first one you found, maybe, (at least the first one you found to suit your agenda in this thread) but not the only one. if you check out any dictionary, there will also be listings for 'christian' described as somebody who exemplifies and follows the teachings of christ; somebody who goes to a church under the denomination of christianity. there are more.

you reduce complex phenomena to this ridiculously oversimplified bullshit and then try to ram it down throats. it's insane.

[-p.tiddy-]

goodness, you prattle on with the exact same talking points through about a dozen foes, each of whom inevitably give up once they realize you aren't processing a word they're saying.... and then you pat yourself on the bat for a debate well fought. just another case of your delusion.

i just wrote a couple paragraphs immediately above your post detailing what it actually means, according to REAL CHRISTIANS, as opposed to primetime (though i imagine you'd consider yourself more of the expert), to be a christian... and the bottom line is that it could mean many things. christianity is thousands of years old and its followers do not begin and end with people who take a literal interpretation of the holy trinity. rupaul is in this thread and he makes a great example of that.

and yet in response from you, i get... the exact same thing you had already written. reworded ever so slightly.

like i said, you're a lost cause. i'm not giving up on the argument, i'm giving up on you. sensibly i might add.
but it's followers have to ACTUALLY BELIEVE

I was born a "casual Christian"...I don't think I was ever actually a Christian...even though I was labeled that


oh well...run along now bye bye

[-p.tiddy-]

this is a single definition. the first one you found, maybe, (at least the first one you found to suit your agenda in this thread) but not the only one. if you check out any dictionary, there will also be listings for 'christian' described as somebody who exemplifies and follows the teachings of christ; somebody who goes to a church under the denomination of christianity. there are more.

you reduce complex phenomena to this ridiculously oversimplified bullshit and then try to ram it down throats. it's insane.
dude...A CHRISTIAN HAS TO BELIEVE IN CHRIST!!!

:banghead:


it IS that simple...really

[RidonKs]

Well I don't know about the real teachings...but isn't it safe to assume that a real Catholic has to buy into at least SOME of those teachings?

Can a child-teen that goes to church everyday but never gives any of the teachings any thought or actually buys into the existance of any of it really be called a Catholic?
why are you framing this as all or nothing. THAT ISN'T REALITY.

the example you just set up: a child teen who doesn't give catholicism any thought nor buys into any of its teachings... yet still calls himself a catholic?

when has that ever happened?

a better example is of a teenager who was raised in a catholic household, believes strongly in core tenets of christian morals, will wind up marrying in a catholic ceremony/holy matrimony and junk, attends service every sunday... yet believes there are many things wrong with the institution of the roman catholic church, uses contraceptives as an intelligent human being, and isn't afraid to befriend a homosexual.

what would you call them? catholic? christian? tweener?

that's the point. it's nowhere near as cut and dry as your portrayal, which is full on retard mode oversimplification.

[RidonKs]

dude...A CHRISTIAN HAS TO BELIEVE IN CHRIST!!!

:banghead:


it IS that simple...really
what about people who say they believe but hold smidgets of doubt in their most honest heart of hearts? they go about their daily lives professing love and devout faith in jesus christ as their saviour, but upon intense interrogation, turns out they're willing to overturn all of that and confess that they aren't as certain as they wanted everybody do think.

the hypothetical christian outlined above is not an anomoly, there are loads of people who would fall under that category. do they "count" in your eyes?

[-p.tiddy-]

why are you framing this as all or nothing. THAT ISN'T REALITY.

the example you just set up: a child teen who doesn't give catholicism any thought nor buys into any of its teachings... yet still calls himself a catholic?

when has that ever happened?

a better example is of a teenager who was raised in a catholic household, believes strongly in core tenets of christian morals, will wind up marrying in a catholic ceremony/holy matrimony and junk, attends service every sunday... yet believes there are many things wrong with the institution of the roman catholic church, uses contraceptives as an intelligent human being, and isn't afraid to befriend a homosexual.

what would you call them? catholic? christian? tweener?

that's the point. it's nowhere near as cut and dry as your portrayal, which is full on retard mode oversimplification.
I call that person a believer...not a "casual catholic"

the person you just described is not what we were debating



when has that ever happened?

that happens all the time btw

[RidonKs]

I call that person a believer...not a "casual catholic"

the person you just described is not what we were debating
but they have long ago decided to reject many components of the Roman Catholic Church as God's messenger, his representative on earth... that is a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of catholicism and every single catholic in the world will tell you that. if you can't believe in the word of the pope, how could you possibly be a catholic?

and yet you just said you'd call them a 'believer'. does that mean they're catholic? just sorta kinda christian? or merely spiritual? in spite of the fact that they call themselves catholic?

i repeat. IT.ISN'T.THAT.SIMPLE.

no matter how much you want it to be.

[-p.tiddy-]

what about people who say they believe but hold smidgets of doubt in their most honest heart of hearts? they go about their daily lives professing love and devout faith in jesus christ as their saviour, but upon intense interrogation, turns out they're willing to overturn all of that and confess that they aren't as certain as they wanted everybody do think.

the hypothetical christian outlined above is not an anomoly, there are loads of people who would fall under that category. do they "count" in your eyes?
I would say BY DEFINITION...that person "at heart" is really agnostic

and that isn't my own interpretation...that is the real definition


At this person's heart, they really "don't know" ...even though the rest of the world thinks they do have 100% faith

[-p.tiddy-]

but they have long ago decided to reject many components of the Roman Catholic Church as God's messenger, his representative on earth... that is a FUNDAMENTAL aspect of catholicism and every single catholic in the world will tell you that. if you can't believe in the word of the pope, how could you possibly be a catholic?

and yet you just said you'd call them a 'believer'. does that mean they're catholic? just sorta kinda christian? or merely spiritual? in spite of the fact that they call themselves catholic?

i repeat. IT.ISN'T.THAT.SIMPLE.

no matter how much you want it to be.
you are bringing up a completely new debate...that maybe isn't simple

but as far as Christians go I would say that if the person accepts Jesus Christ as their lord and savior he is an actual believer....even if he doesn't buy into other facets of the Bible....that one is my own personal definiton though.

[RidonKs]

we're arguing about how to classify somebody as "christian", as "catholic", as "jewish" and all the rest... are we not? this is part and parcel of the same debate. i'm trying to pound into your head that those words that i quoted above mean a lot more than you're giving them credit for meaning.

my main point is that all of those labels, those identifiers (which is really what they are), cannot be reduced to merely describing a theological or ontological belief in the nature of the universe, whether there's a holy trinity or the wine is the blood or yahweh caused all those rapes and deaths.... these are important components of those labels, but they do not reduce other factors to insignificance.

each of these traditions are thousands of years old and have come to represent ways of life, philosophical methodologies, ethical bundles... and many other things, as well as a literal belief in theological teachings as outlined in the sacred texts.

you're deciding quite unilaterally that the last factor, the theological factor, overwhelms all others when debating who is deserving of which label. if you don't literally believe in x, then you aren't y. i and many others who actually identify with those labels would strongly disagree and emphasize the importance of all the other components. the stereotypical 'good christian' who follows the golden rule believes that jesus christ was an incredibly important figure who had nothing but elegant beautiful things to say about his fellow man... and for that reason, he calls himself a christian, regardless of any crap about dad being a bearded fella in the sky.

[-p.tiddy-]

we're arguing about how to classify somebody as "christian", as "catholic", as "jewish" and all the rest... are we not? this is part and parcel of the same debate. i'm trying to pound into your head that those words that i quoted above mean a lot more than you're giving them credit for meaning.

my main point is that all of those labels, those identifiers (which is really what they are), cannot be reduced to merely describing a theological or ontological belief in the nature of the universe, whether there's a holy trinity or the wine is the blood or yahweh caused all those rapes and deaths.... these are important components of those labels, but they do not reduce other factors to insignificance.

each of these traditions are thousands of years old and have come to represent ways of life, philosophical methodologies, ethical bundles... and many other things, as well as a literal belief in theological teachings as outlined in the sacred texts.

you're deciding quite unilaterally that the last factor, the theological factor, overwhelms all others when debating who is deserving of which label. if you don't literally believe in x, then you aren't y. i and many others who actually identify with those labels would strongly disagree and emphasize the importance of all the other components. the stereotypical 'good christian' who follows the golden rule believes that jesus christ was an incredibly important figure who had nothing but elegant beautiful things to say about his fellow man... and for that reason, he calls himself a christian, regardless of any crap about dad being a bearded fella in the sky.
I'm not really debating who deserves any label...ANYONE can be labeled anything...I could label myself a Satan Worshiper if I wanted, but I'm not one at heart

I am debating what a person actually is in reality...and it started by a simple question from Macho Man (way to go dude lol) asking if a Christian that questions his own beliefs actually being agnostic at heart.

If the person doesn't actually believe then he isn't really a "believer"

[Rasheed1]

:roll: @ p-tiddy

[RidonKs]

I'm not really debating who deserves any label...ANYONE can be labeled anything...I could label myself a Satan Worshiper if I wanted, but I'm not one at heart

I am debating what a person actually is in reality...and it started by a simple question from Macho Man (way to go dude lol) asking if a Christian that questions his own beliefs actually being agnostic at heart.

If the person doesn't actually believe then he isn't really a "believer"
when i use a word like label or identifier, i'm not just talking about what a person calls themselves... i'm also talking about what they actually are. i'm just giving broader more generous definitions to these historically loaded longstanding traditional terms than you are. i think my definitions are better, i suppose is the heart of the argument from my side.

so you could label yourself satan worshiper if you want, but you would still have to square that with at least something to do with satan... not just behaviours you exhibit that have been associated with satanism at some point in history, like death rituals and gore metal and junk. you'd actually have to prove that aspects of your belief coincide with the depiction of satan in your mind, and that that satanic depiction is also related in one way or another to the satan the rest of the world all knows and loves.

the christian can do that without actually believing in jesus as the holy lord and saviour. there are innumerable components to christianity that can qualify somebody as warranting that label regardless of how they feel towards "the big guy". one of them is the "love thy neighbour" philosophy which is a lot richer than most presume, another might be sanctity of marriage, just going to church and getting inspired by your pastor's sermon as it relates to the goings-on of the world.

he could still totally be called a christian while remaining, for all intents and purposes with regards to supernatural belief, completely and utterly agnostic.

so imo, christianity and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. i think most with any academic or personal experience dealing with either term would tend to agree.

[-p.tiddy-]

when i use a word like label or identifier, i'm not just talking about what a person calls themselves... i'm also talking about what they actually are. i'm just giving broader more generous definitions to these historically loaded longstanding traditional terms than you are. i think my definitions are better, i suppose is the heart of the argument from my side.

so you could label yourself satan worshiper if you want, but you would still have to square that with at least something to do with satan... not just behaviours you exhibit that have been associated with satanism at some point in history, like death rituals and gore metal and junk. you'd actually have to prove that aspects of your belief coincide with the depiction of satan in your mind, and that that satanic depiction is also related in one way or another to the satan the rest of the world all knows and loves.
.
but first and foremost I have to believe Satan is real...correct?


the christian can do that without actually believing in jesus as the holy lord and saviour. there are innumerable components to christianity that can qualify somebody as warranting that label regardless of how they feel towards "the big guy". one of them is the "love thy neighbour" philosophy which is a lot richer than most presume, another might be sanctity of marriage, just going to church and getting inspired by your pastor's sermon as it relates to the goings-on of the world.

he could still totally be called a christian while remaining, for all intents and purposes with regards to supernatural belief, completely and utterly agnostic.

so imo, christianity and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. i think most with any academic or personal experience dealing with either term would tend to agree.
WHAT???!!!

I def disagree with this...

If you don't believe in CHRIST...you are NOT a CHRIST-ian


IMO that one is a complete deal breaker...the other stuff is secondary to that

I am sure every Christiam poster in here would agree as well

[Bladers]

What are the real teachings? Catholicism has the problem of Vatican interpretation and expansion on what followers should believe that doesn't always jive with what followers actually practice. Take birth control for example. The Church says it's a sin although 98% of Catholics in this country use it.

So are you saying 98% of catholics are going to hell? :lol

[RidonKs]

okay, let's make a distinction since you brought "satan worshipping" into the equation


i would distinguish between a "christian" and a "christ worshipper"

the former has a long and storied historical tradition, involves rites, rituals, practices, beliefs, ethics, authority, etc etc. the latter can only be interpreted literally since it doesn't have a colloquial meaning, and therefore implies somebody who worships christ... since worship is usually reserved for symbols of sanctity, by that logic, it would seem a christ worshipper would have to believe in the transcendence of jesus. you could argue semantics and say they could merely 'worship' the ethics that jesus preached, but i would then say that 'worship' is the wrong word to use.

the rest of your post... we've already discussed at length. not gonna bother getting back into that.




but first and foremost I have to believe Satan is real...correct?
but to respond directly to this for shits and giggles, satan is merely the embodiment of the world's evils in religious terminology. so if you worshiped rape and murder, and considered their significance to come first and foremost to any understanding of the world as we know it, then yes, you would be a satan worshipper. you wouldn't actually have to believe in a red guy with horns who lives beside a fiery pond.

[Bladers]

when i use a word like label or identifier, i'm not just talking about what a person calls themselves... i'm also talking about what they actually are. i'm just giving broader more generous definitions to these historically loaded longstanding traditional terms than you are. i think my definitions are better, i suppose is the heart of the argument from my side.

so you could label yourself satan worshiper if you want, but you would still have to square that with at least something to do with satan... not just behaviours you exhibit that have been associated with satanism at some point in history, like death rituals and gore metal and junk. you'd actually have to prove that aspects of your belief coincide with the depiction of satan in your mind, and that that satanic depiction is also related in one way or another to the satan the rest of the world all knows and loves.

the christian can do that without actually believing in jesus as the holy lord and saviour. there are innumerable components to christianity that can qualify somebody as warranting that label regardless of how they feel towards "the big guy". one of them is the "love thy neighbour" philosophy which is a lot richer than most presume, another might be sanctity of marriage, just going to church and getting inspired by your pastor's sermon as it relates to the goings-on of the world.

he could still totally be called a christian while remaining, for all intents and purposes with regards to supernatural belief, completely and utterly agnostic.

so imo, christianity and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive terms. i think most with any academic or personal experience dealing with either term would tend to agree.

Are you a catholic?

Lets see what Jesus says...

"if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John)

Oh oh looks like your statement is in contradiction to Jesus.

[RidonKs]

go suck a c0ck f@ggot

[Nanners]

cant believe PT is STILL bickering over semantics.

the world is not black and white, you luddite

[rufuspaul]

So are you saying 98% of catholics are going to hell? :lol


Sadly that only leaves 2% to join you in eternal paradise.

[-p.tiddy-]

Okay call me whatever you want, a loon, crazy, hard -headed etc...but a Christian has to believe in Christ...that is the CORE of Christianity...it is a deal breaker...that part IS black and white

the other stuff is secondary to that...and perhaps more complex, but the "Christ" part is must



Nanners, I am just repying to others at this point, like I was with you earlier...not bickering

[-p.tiddy-]

nothing wrong with debating semantics either...

[Is He Ill]

:roll: This has become even more comical.

[-p.tiddy-]

:roll: This has become even more comical.
I know I said a Christian has to believe in Christ!!!...hilarious!!!

OMGZ...WHAT WILL I SAY NEXT!!!

What insane out there opinions I have!!!




What's insane is the amount of attention I get...

[Nanners]

PT - I am curious, is there anybody on ISH that you recognize as an intellectually superior poster? Is there a single poster on ISH that when you read their post you think to yourself "This guy REALLY knows what he is talking about... i should stfu and learn a thing or two from this guy."

Off the top of my head, some of the posters that I know are smarter than me and I almost always listen to are Thorpesaurus and RBA