How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[CouldntBeMeTho]

Tall Israeli bodied this thread something serious.

by making up terms that dont exist and trolling? That chart that was posted 7 pages ago explains everthing. Agnostic atheist is the actual term that most "atheists" would fall under. I dont know how hard that is to comprehend. do some ******* research

 

[NoMayo15]

those 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

Similarities?? I use those terms interchangeably. They're basically THE SAMEEEE THINGGGG

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?

No, I don't. Neither believe in a god. They're both atheists. Seems to me, one just recognizes we don't have all the answers yet, and there may, some day, be better evidence for god. To be a strong atheist is to claim to know something that's inherently unknowable, in my opinion. So no, I don't think they're truer.

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)

Okay, there's several things I want to address here. First, when I say those four terms,(a)theism/(a)gnosticism, aren't mutually exclusive, I mean to say they aren't incompatible ... you can be both without there being any contradiction. Now, when you say you aren't referring to any connection to agnosticism, I think that's the problem. You see agnosticism and weak atheism as vastly different, when they are closely related.... they're basically the sameee thingggg.... aiight so lets see where you're going with this...

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

Again, what do you mean by mild atheist? Someone who only slightly disbelieves in God? They're open to the idea that a god might exist? I don't know what you mean by some of these terms. Someone who's gnostic in their atheism? I mean, fine that makes sense. I KNOW my position on this debate. I'm adamant about it. But how is any of this useful?

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".

These phrases don't make sense because you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what the terms mean, and I've pretty much wasted all this time arguing with you.



You made some point about knowing what these terms mean earlier... but I will never believe you really understood these terms before this discussion.

 

[Zach Lowe]

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.

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

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?)

 

[Serious]

this should be a nice read tomorrow morning...

Special thanks in advance to @Tall Israeli for contributing

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15

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

in the midst of arguing against me you admitted that I'm right

"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".

assuming you're going by my definition of strong that I'm only using to counter your "they're not mutually exclusive" argument you should be able to be a strong atheist that's also agnostic

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?

 

[NoMayo15]

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)

Belief is an active thing. You go to church, you believe there's a god, you pray to it... whatever. Agnosticism is a claim of knowledge. Essentially you don't know if a god exists. So an atheist can say he doesn't know whether a god exists, but he doesn't believe in one. By the way, this is exactly the definition of a weak atheist.

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

It's not that it doesn't make sense, it's you don't comprehend it.

If I make the positive claim "there is no god", then yes, the burden of proof is on me. That's not what's happening here. Since you invoked law, I'll make an analogy to the court system. When someone is accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the state. The plaintiff is essentially making the claim that the defendant is responsible for the crime. They have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. The jury examines the evidence, and have two choices: Guilty, or Not Guilty. A not guilty vote does not mean they think he's innocent, but the state has not met the burden of proof to show the defendant is guilty.

The theist is making a positive claim when they say a god exists, and that's why he has the burden of proof. As an (agnostic) atheist, I don't say that there is no god. I say, there is not enough evidence to say for sure that there is one. Just like a jury might not know that the defendant is innocent, but votes not guilty if there isn't enough evidence.

Again, a strong atheist might make the claim no god exists, but he has the burden of proof for that claim. I don't hold that position, though.

The first theist existed before the first atheist?

Yes, essentially. The theist, by necessity, came first. I mean, I'm not saying the first person was an atheist ... I don't really know or care. I'm just saying that atheism is a response to theism. A response to a claim that a god exists. That is why they hold the burden of proof. It's kinda like one Muslim on here's sig kinda says .... if there were no theists, there would be no atheists.

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?

Again, if I say that, then the burden is on me to support that. My stance is more one that there's no good reason to believe one exists.

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?

I don't know, I still don't really follow this question. It's not so much about personal conviction, it's just that ... for every other mythological thing that there is no proof for, people have no problem accepting the idea that it doesn't exist. It's not rational to believe in things that aren't proven, or there isn't good evidence for. Everyone is atheistic towards hundreds of other gods ... I just go one step further.

 

[NoMayo15]

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?

No. You still don't understand.

A person can be both an agnostic and an atheist. They would be called a weak atheist.

You've been saying weak atheists don't exist -- That they are agnostics.

A person can be both a gnostic and an atheist. They would be called a strong atheist.

You've been saying these are the only atheists that exist. This is why you are wrong.

There's no flip-flopping. You don't understand basic shyt.

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?

Probably because no one has had this much patience with you before, and they would have given up a longggg time ago. You don't understand these very simple concepts.

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

Weaker? What does that mean? Less fundamentalist? Okay, I'll gladly accept that then. My question is why do you value someone who blindly supports one ideology, despite contradicting evidence?

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

Okay. Slightly disbelieves. Who cares?

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

No, you moron, I didn't. You said an agnostic strong atheists didn't make sense, so the entire thing doesn't make sense. I'm trying to explain that atheism, theism, agnosticism and gnosticism are the only four combinations. You trying to add weak and strong atheism is what's messing you up. The labels weak and strong IS agnosticism/gnosticism. The conversation is essentially like this

No Mayo: So you can be agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist.
Short IsFAKEi: But what if you're a Theistic Atheist!
No Mayo:

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?

I responded to both you ignoramus. WTF does it mean to be a mild atheist who is gnostic? That would mean they're gnostic about their atheism no? Do you even know what words mean?

 

[the cac mamba]

@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

fool, i told you that there were south american cultures that did that and you told me to give you an example. so i gave you a link

i was readin about that shyt in 5th grade

 

[LastEmperor2k2]

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,

 

[Mr. Somebody]

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

 

[Mr. Somebody]

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.

 

[LastEmperor2k2]

O man the 1800 hot lines just keep ringing.

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?

 

[The Real]

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

I think you're conflating the burden of proof in an argumentative scenario, which is a normative standard in order for a true debate to take place, with the burden of proof that accompanies particular claims in themselves. For example, if someone just says "there is no God," and does not provide anything further, than that claim is not even an argument, and requires some "proof" to become one in the context of a discussion. By itself, in the context of that discussion, it is a plain statement. You're right in one sense, which is that for the particular claims that theism is true or false in the most general way, only inductive statements can be made, and as such they both carry some burdens of proof, but the generality with which you're applying that doesn't hold up. It only works for those specific claims, not for any argument.

Each claim has varying burdens of proof in itself, though. While it is true that atheism as a complete denial of any kind of deity would come with a burden of proof that might be the same as the claim that there is a deity, specific statements about deities depend on their individual composition. Saying that Yahweh according to a literalist interpretation of the Bible or Allah according to the literalist interpretation of the Quran exists comes with a different burden of proof than saying those particular deities do not exist. The former statements are far more ridiculous and, in any situation, whether the believer starts the conversation or not, they carry a burden of proof that a statement denying them simply does not.

 

[the cac mamba]

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?

at the end of the day imo its still the person who has faith in something thats not there for us to see

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

Originally Posted by Tall Israeli
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

It's not atheists that are making a claim. The burden of proof always lies with the PERSON MAKING THE CLAIM. Atheism is simply a lack of believe in said claim.