Tall Israeli bodied this thread something serious.

Tall Israeli bodied this thread something serious.
Similarities?? I use those terms interchangeably. They're basically THE SAMEEEE THINGGGGthose are not far from the common definitions you'll find on Wikipedia and other such places
a weak atheist is defined as "a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none" so there's an obvious similarity to agnostic atheist, I'd even say that the majority who fit one definition will probably fit the other
strong atheists and weak atheists are both technically atheists but don't you think that strong atheists are truer atheists in a sense? or stronger?
when I say strong/weak atheist I'm not referring to any connection to agnosticism, I'm simply describing how theist or atheist someone is without any relation to agnosticism (which is the rule you must follow if you are to consider a/theism and a/gnosticism as unrelated, not mutually exclusive concepts)
well then why doesn't someone who is a mild atheist but gnostic in his mild atheism make any sense? or a lesser example, an extreme, very strong atheist who is also agnostic?
these things make no sense, so again, the argument that they're not mutually exclusive is weak because there are scenarios that make no sense
if they were truly mutually exclusive every possibility would make sense
You may have heard of the terms, but by talking to you tonight, it couldn't be any more obvious that you don't understand what they mean.
You can easily come to a conclusion on theism vs. atheism. Do you know how? There's no objective evidence for the existence of a god. Does that prove that one does not exist? No. But it's not reasonable to believe in something when there is no evidence of it. The time when its reasonable to believe is when there's strong evidence that the claim is likely to be true. And if you also agree that belief is an active thing, then you have to realize that disbelief is the only alternative option. NOT a positive claim that no gods exist, but a disbelief in this claim until other evidence is presented.
I don't follow the bolded. Explain that again.
you simultaneously admit that your atheism is only a personal conviction (due to your agnosticism) and support it as a "rational" position for everyone (wtf?)![]()
"You see agnosticism and weak atheism as vastly different, when they are closely related.... they're basically the sameee thingggg"
A strong atheist who is also agnostic doesn't make sense because being a strong atheist and an agnostic IS mutually exclusive. A strong atheist, by definition, CANNOT BE AGNOSTIC. His position on the knowability of the existence of god is already expressed by the word "strong". Just like my agnosticism is already expressed by the term "weak atheist".
That's not a conclusion
with the bolded you can conclude that agnosticism is more rational than gnosticism
you cannot conclusively prove anything on atheism vs. theism
you say atheism is just disbelief due to lack of evidence
then where does agnosticism come in play? it essentially means the same thing (we can't know because there's no evidence)
this whole burden of proof crap shouldn't sway you in either direction
it makes no sense
if I say nothing at all and you tell me that there is no God, isn't the burden of proof on you in that situation? there's no universal law that says the burden of proof is always on theists and never on atheists
just as in law it should be on the accuser, the one who makes the first positive statement
The first theist existed before the first atheist?
would you say that if you started a thread saying God doesn't exist that's not in response to anything the burden of proof still wouldn't be on you? it always is on the atheist even if the atheist is pushing a positive claim?
and about the last post, I was talking about how you're agnostic and you recognize that your atheism is just a personal conviction that's unproven, but you still think atheism is a rational position for people beyond yourself
so how can this position of atheism that you recognize is being outside of your own idea of what's rational still be widely rational?
You're the one who just said "You're the one saying a weak atheist is an agnostic… You're still wrong."
flip flopping more are we? now they're basically the same thing to you?![]()
if strong atheists aren't truer then why don't more atheists who like to argue like you do ever say they're agnostic unless they're pushed to?
you just want to make dumb arguments and you're mad that admitting agnosticism makes you weaker
Weak theism as atheists define it is agnostic atheism except maybe in some cases
I'm just using the term weak to mean mildly theist, without any layer of agnosticism in either direction
a mild atheist is someone who slightly disbelieves in God
so you agree that a/gnosticism and a/theism can conflict in certain combinations… before you said they weren't mutually exclusive… if that were true then any combination would make sense
also, you chose to respond to my lesser example instead of a mild atheist who is gnostic because you can't come up with a response
I just tricked you into contradicting yourself yet again "strong atheist and an agnostic IS mutually exclusive." "a/gnosticism and a/theism aren't mutually exclusive" which one is it?
@the cac mamba
spend more than a minute on a reply and I'll respond to you
I find it difficult to decipher your rambling low IQ thoughts
the point of me challenging you to name a religion that does human sacrifices wasn't to show that there wasn't ever one in history, but to show to you that you can't think of one off top cuz you're talking a lot of shyt about stuff you're poorly informed on and you have to google "religion with human sacrifice" just to find an example
if you have anything more to say try being intelligent when you say it
That's not a conclusion
with the bolded you can conclude that agnosticism is more rational than gnosticism
you cannot conclusively prove anything on atheism vs. theism
you say atheism is just disbelief due to lack of evidence
then where does agnosticism come in play? it essentially means the same thing (we can't know because there's no evidence)
this whole burden of proof crap shouldn't sway you in either direction
it makes no sense
if I say nothing at all and you tell me that there is no God, isn't the burden of proof on you in that situation? there's no universal law that says the burden of proof is always on theists and never on atheists
just as in law it should be on the accuser, the one who makes the first positive statement
so what does your burden of proof argument rely on? is it just based on the fact that there are most theists than atheists so theists must prove to atheists that they're right? or the first theist existed before the first atheist?
would you say that if you started a thread saying God doesn't exist that's not in response to anything the burden of proof still wouldn't be on you? it always is on the atheist even if the atheist is pushing a positive claim?
and about the last post, I was talking about how you're agnostic and you recognize that your atheism is just a personal conviction that's unproven, but you still think atheism is a rational position for people beyond yourself
so how can this position of atheism that you recognize as being outside of your own idea of what's rational still be widely rational?
idk how else to explain it
this is what I already said
How can extremely political adults be taken serious?
Believing in a higher power> Believing in those who have proven to be liars, cheaters and thieves for decades,
O man the 1800 hot lines just keep ringing.![]()
if I say nothing at all and you tell me that there is no God, isn't the burden of proof on you in that situation? there's no universal law that says the burden of proof is always on theists and never on atheists
Whose the bigger fool, the one who knows someone is crooked and still supports and believes in them or the person who has faith in something that cannot be proven or disproven?