Julius Skrrvin
I be winkin' through the scope
It's not. It's an exercise in semantics.this should be a nice read tomorrow morning...
Special thanks in advance to @Tall Israeli for contributing
Last edited by a moderator:
How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.
- Thread starter BuyandSave
- Start date
That's a retarded cop out
"I do not have belief that there is a God" and "I believe that there is no God" mean exactly the same thing
You're playing retarded word games and sticking to talking points instead of being intellectually honest and attempting to do original thinking
Mayo just said that atheists do make the claim in some cases so who's right?
That's a retarded cop out
"I do not have belief that there is a God" and "I believe that there is no God" mean exactly the same thing
You're playing retarded word games and sticking to talking points instead of being intellectually honest and attempting to do original thinking
Mayo just said that atheists do make the claim in some cases so who's right?
Im not claiming anything, a-theism wouldnt exist without theism. atheism is simply a reaction to the claim that there is a god.
@NoMayo15 (re: first reply)
You can play games all you want with this "I have a lack of belief, not any belief of my own" crap but phrase it as "I believe that there is no God" instead of "I lack belief in a God" and suddenly you're making a positive statement
Really you're just question-begging and saying you're right by default
You could similarly rephrase "I believe in God" to "I lack belief in atheism" as a distraction tactic / averting the issue, it would still be nonsense just as when you did
All you've said on this matter of proof is returning to the talking point of "I'm not making any claims, I don't have to support my argument"
You were uniting strong atheists and weak atheists earlier saying that they're both valid atheists, now you want to draw distinctions because it's convenient for your argument right now, how disgusting
You have no proof that the theist came first, that's a retarded talking point. Other atheists say that atheism came first. None of you can support your claims so you have to toss those ideas out.
Again you're retreating to dumb ass talking points with the my stance is a non-stance crap
When discussing your own beliefs you cannot rule out the existence of a God so your atheism cannot be defined as solely rational, so how can you call atheism rational as a choice for people in general? you don't follow the question because it shyts on your whole philosophy for you it's not strong enough to consider rational but you're happy if others will consider it rational (atheism that is) 
You can play games all you want with this "I have a lack of belief, not any belief of my own" crap but phrase it as "I believe that there is no God" instead of "I lack belief in a God" and suddenly you're making a positive statement
Really you're just question-begging and saying you're right by default
You could similarly rephrase "I believe in God" to "I lack belief in atheism" as a distraction tactic / averting the issue, it would still be nonsense just as when you did
All you've said on this matter of proof is returning to the talking point of "I'm not making any claims, I don't have to support my argument"
You were uniting strong atheists and weak atheists earlier saying that they're both valid atheists, now you want to draw distinctions because it's convenient for your argument right now, how disgusting
You have no proof that the theist came first, that's a retarded talking point. Other atheists say that atheism came first. None of you can support your claims so you have to toss those ideas out.
Again you're retreating to dumb ass talking points with the my stance is a non-stance crap
When discussing your own beliefs you cannot rule out the existence of a God so your atheism cannot be defined as solely rational, so how can you call atheism rational as a choice for people in general?
you don't follow the question because it shyts on your whole philosophy for you it's not strong enough to consider rational but you're happy if others will consider it rational (atheism that is)
Last edited by a moderator:
what does this argument rest on? etymology?
atheism comes from atheos meaning "without God" or "no God"
atheism is therefore "without / no God belief", the origin is not from theism, it's atheos
In response to your "non-claim claim" I could similarly say that a theist does not claim anything, they're just reacting to the atheist claim that atheism is valid
Both "non-claims" are nonsense
you might as well not respond if you're gonna be going back to powerless and overused talking points instead of using your own ideas (assuming you have any), I don't want to have to read those posts so save your time
@NoMayo15
No you are flip flopping because you used to say that a/theism and a/gnosticism are completely independent, now you're limiting it to 4 possibilities, which means they can't be considered completely independent ideas
Yeah you can mix and match atheism / theism with agnostic / gnostic but if you cannot reconcile someone being a mild atheist who is gnostic (and fully so), then this model is ineffective and does not reflect reality
You're the one who separates a/gnosticism and a/theism like this, so I'm playing by your rules. A/theism is a belief and a/gnosticism is a claim to knowledge that shows your belief is correct. So why can't you slightly believe and believe that existing knowledge justifies your slight belief beyond a doubt? That makes some sense but a weak atheist who is gnostic makes no sense, so why do you keep going back to "they're independent axes" crap? That model is clearly stupid if it allows for stupid possibilities. If you want to show that there are only four possible positions on the graph you could show that in another way.
Your cop-out answer to "why don't atheists just say they're agnostic if they are" shows you're on the same, low level of thinking and argument as so-called famous atheists and other troll atheists online, you want the attention that comes to you if you claim atheism and you keep your agnosticism on the low so that people will respond to you
Your answer to the weaker statement is another admission of your flawed thinking. You describe a strong atheist as someone who blindly supports his ideology despite conflicting evidence (if you're not then you've chosen a really retarded way to bring up another idea when we seem to still be on the same idea of weak/strong atheists). So now there's evidence for theism to you? I thought you were an agnostic atheist based on the idea that there's no objective evidence to argue for theism?
Figure it out before you attempt to make arguments
I'm not adding up weak and strong atheism, I'm adding up a high degree of atheism with agnosticism, or a low degree of atheism with gnosticism. You once considered these ideas totally independent, now they're more interconnected to you because I revealed to you that considering them completely independent is a flawed model. I've said before that in this instance when I say weak/strong atheism I'm not using the standard definition that includes a degree of a/gnosticism, I'm simply saying how much someone believes in God or believes in no God without considering how much knowledge they think they have. I'm just using your model to show you that the model is crap, now you're starting to get it because you seem to be distancing yourself from it, but you still won't admit that I showed you your error, you're going back to this "wait, you're not using strong/weak atheism in the way that I use them" statement when I already explained many posts earlier
A mild atheist who is gnostic would be what I described earlier in this post, someone who slightly believes in no God but believes that existing knowledge justifies that belief beyond a doubt. If your model made sense then that would make perfect sense.
No you are flip flopping because you used to say that a/theism and a/gnosticism are completely independent, now you're limiting it to 4 possibilities, which means they can't be considered completely independent ideas
Yeah you can mix and match atheism / theism with agnostic / gnostic but if you cannot reconcile someone being a mild atheist who is gnostic (and fully so), then this model is ineffective and does not reflect reality
You're the one who separates a/gnosticism and a/theism like this, so I'm playing by your rules. A/theism is a belief and a/gnosticism is a claim to knowledge that shows your belief is correct. So why can't you slightly believe and believe that existing knowledge justifies your slight belief beyond a doubt? That makes some sense but a weak atheist who is gnostic makes no sense, so why do you keep going back to "they're independent axes" crap? That model is clearly stupid if it allows for stupid possibilities. If you want to show that there are only four possible positions on the graph you could show that in another way.
Your cop-out answer to "why don't atheists just say they're agnostic if they are" shows you're on the same, low level of thinking and argument as so-called famous atheists and other troll atheists online, you want the attention that comes to you if you claim atheism and you keep your agnosticism on the low so that people will respond to you
Your answer to the weaker statement is another admission of your flawed thinking. You describe a strong atheist as someone who blindly supports his ideology despite conflicting evidence (if you're not then you've chosen a really retarded way to bring up another idea when we seem to still be on the same idea of weak/strong atheists). So now there's evidence for theism to you? I thought you were an agnostic atheist based on the idea that there's no objective evidence to argue for theism?
Figure it out before you attempt to make argumentsI'm not adding up weak and strong atheism, I'm adding up a high degree of atheism with agnosticism, or a low degree of atheism with gnosticism. You once considered these ideas totally independent, now they're more interconnected to you because I revealed to you that considering them completely independent is a flawed model. I've said before that in this instance when I say weak/strong atheism I'm not using the standard definition that includes a degree of a/gnosticism, I'm simply saying how much someone believes in God or believes in no God without considering how much knowledge they think they have. I'm just using your model to show you that the model is crap, now you're starting to get it because you seem to be distancing yourself from it, but you still won't admit that I showed you your error, you're going back to this "wait, you're not using strong/weak atheism in the way that I use them" statement when I already explained many posts earlier
A mild atheist who is gnostic would be what I described earlier in this post, someone who slightly believes in no God but believes that existing knowledge justifies that belief beyond a doubt. If your model made sense then that would make perfect sense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Atheists like to play this game so you might as well beat them at it
Of course they'll never admit defeat though they'll just modify their positions while claiming they never changed a thing
They are independent. Idk how many times I can explain that. You can't be a mild atheist gnostic because mild and gnostic contradict each other.
Are you seriously this slow?Um, you can. Is that what you mean by a gnostic mild theist?
Yeah. It does. You're making up terms that are by definition contradictory as a way to invalidate the model I and other posters have shown to you. It's not an argument against the model. It's fukking retarded.
Oh yes, low level thinking atheists. Biology professors, theoretical physicists, cosmologists ... yeah, Neil deGrasse Tyson is a real moron. He's a real low level thinker. GTFO.
Your answer to the weaker statement is another admission of your flawed thinking. You describe a strong atheist as someone who blindly supports his ideology despite conflicting evidence (if you're not then you've chosen a really retarded way to bring up another idea when we seem to still be on the same idea of weak/strong atheists). So now there's evidence for theism to you? I thought you were an agnostic atheist based on the idea that there's no objective evidence to argue for theism?
No. Again, you have a real bad way of conflating two statements to mean the same thing. Evidence that I would say conflicts with the strong atheist's world view is not evidence for theism. You are a very simple creature. It's not some either/or dichotomy. Just like saying you disbelieve in theism doesn't mean you are a strong atheist.
Okay, what do you mean by high degree of atheism?
While yall are throwing around the words agnostic and atheist its important to note that many people consider them to be the same thing. I just think each of the beliefs are a rejection of the claims of all organized religions. We don't believe your bullshyt and we think no one knows. God is a bullshyt term anyway, everyone has their own idea of what God is and there really is no defining it. How can you describe it? Everyone would describe it differently. So, fukk outta here with all this Harry Potter wizardry bullshyt :smugobama: let us talk like Men, with facts. Not some old ass religion that is no different than cults and religions emerging in our modern day.
this thread is so fukkin gay
buncha nitpicking into what the exact definition of an atheist is
buncha nitpicking into what the exact definition of an atheist is
@NoMayo15
Mild and ghostic contradict? No they don't, you're just conveniently misunderstanding what I'm saying because you know it destroys your dumb model
Mild applies to the atheist part of "mild atheist gnostic" not the gnostic part
See, I know you understand what I'm saying but you're playing it like you don't even understand because you can't argue against my argument
Your model is bullshyt because it allows for bullshyt combinations of a/theism and a/gnosticism
Making up terms are contradictory? I'm not even really making up terms, it's not about the terms, it's about the model. Your model is flawed because it didn't reflect reality. You're the one who proposes the model and you haven't even argued for it, all you're saying is "no it's right" over and over again
What, your token black scientist is supposed to impress me? Einstein was a mild theist and an agnostic who was critical of both religion and atheism
No science can yet prove or disprove God so it's irrelevant how many scientists are agnostic or atheist, their opinions are no better than anyone else's
A high degree of atheism is strong belief that there is not a God or strongly disbelief in God (same thing)
This has no connection to a/gnosticism because that's about knowledge or certainty, not belief
According to your flawed model that says a/gnosticism and a/theism are independent and not connected, you should be able to have an extreme belief that there is no God and still be agnostic at the same time
But the term "strong atheism" you use indicates that there's a point where one's atheism can max out and not allow for an agnostic twist
Your model doesn't show this, it instead says you can be any degree of a/theist and a/gnostic in any combination and it should be ok
If you still don't understand the flaws in the model after this idk how many other ways I can explain it
Why don't you attempt to prove your assertion that atheism is the only rational position and theism is not? have you even attempted to do that in this thread? it's long overdue
Mild and ghostic contradict? No they don't, you're just conveniently misunderstanding what I'm saying because you know it destroys your dumb model
Mild applies to the atheist part of "mild atheist gnostic" not the gnostic part
See, I know you understand what I'm saying but you're playing it like you don't even understand because you can't argue against my argument
Your model is bullshyt because it allows for bullshyt combinations of a/theism and a/gnosticism
Making up terms are contradictory? I'm not even really making up terms, it's not about the terms, it's about the model. Your model is flawed because it didn't reflect reality. You're the one who proposes the model and you haven't even argued for it, all you're saying is "no it's right" over and over again
What, your token black scientist is supposed to impress me?
Einstein was a mild theist and an agnostic who was critical of both religion and atheism No science can yet prove or disprove God so it's irrelevant how many scientists are agnostic or atheist, their opinions are no better than anyone else's
A high degree of atheism is strong belief that there is not a God or strongly disbelief in God (same thing)
This has no connection to a/gnosticism because that's about knowledge or certainty, not belief
According to your flawed model that says a/gnosticism and a/theism are independent and not connected, you should be able to have an extreme belief that there is no God and still be agnostic at the same time
But the term "strong atheism" you use indicates that there's a point where one's atheism can max out and not allow for an agnostic twist
Your model doesn't show this, it instead says you can be any degree of a/theist and a/gnostic in any combination and it should be ok
If you still don't understand the flaws in the model after this idk how many other ways I can explain it
Why don't you attempt to prove your assertion that atheism is the only rational position and theism is not?
have you even attempted to do that in this thread? it's long overdue
Last edited by a moderator:
Fillerguy
Veteran
Which God are we talking about?
First of all, stop acting like this is some idea I've come up with. These are common definitions that are used by the majority of theists/atheists who debate this topic.
Second, you can have an "extreme (dis)belief" and be agnostic. Again, I don't know exactly what you mean by 'an extreme believer in atheism', other than someone who passionately confesses their lack of belief in God. Bill Maher comes to mind and would fit that definition quite well. Richard Dawkins is also "extremely devout" in his atheism, and both these men are also agnostic. If you mean some other definition of extreme atheist, please make it clear. I honestly don't follow.
A strong atheist who's an agnostic doesn't make sense because, by definition, strong atheists think they know god doesn't exist. Agnostics don't know if god exists. The terms aren't flawed, your comprehension skills are.
Well, yes, I have. Though, it's quite hard for someone like you to follow my reasoning if we can't even agree on the definitions of certain words.
@NoMayo15
I've said over and over again how I'm not using the terms strong/weak atheism as you do (i.e. the strong atheist is gnostic and the weak atheist is agnostic) but rather I use strong/weak as one's intensity of atheistic belief in isolation without considering how much knowledge they claim to have
I've said like this 4 times now, and you keep going back to "but but but my definition of strong/weak atheism is this" because deflecting is all you can do because your model is crap
Let's not act like these common definitions you're holding onto so dearly are anything but a construct created for atheists to deflect responsibility for the claims they make
I never said once that your common terms are flawed, I created terms that differ from your common terms to show that the model which supports your common terms is retarded
Your little stupid graph even says that one could be fully gnostic while being neither theist nor atheist
Let's drop this talk about this two axes model because you're not understanding my criticisms of it
next post will be about your so called "rational" position of atheism
I've said over and over again how I'm not using the terms strong/weak atheism as you do (i.e. the strong atheist is gnostic and the weak atheist is agnostic) but rather I use strong/weak as one's intensity of atheistic belief in isolation without considering how much knowledge they claim to have
I've said like this 4 times now, and you keep going back to "but but but my definition of strong/weak atheism is this" because deflecting is all you can do because your model is crap
Let's not act like these common definitions you're holding onto so dearly are anything but a construct created for atheists to deflect responsibility for the claims they make
I never said once that your common terms are flawed, I created terms that differ from your common terms to show that the model which supports your common terms is retarded
Your little stupid graph even says that one could be fully gnostic while being neither theist nor atheist
Let's drop this talk about this two axes model because you're not understanding my criticisms of it
next post will be about your so called "rational" position of atheism
Last edited by a moderator:
My model is crap? What are you talking about son? I'm using the definitions the rest of the world uses. The ones with, at the very least, a wikipedia page ... not to mention a multitude of other sources that use the exact same terms. You're the one pulling shyt out of your ass. You have the "model that doesn't make sense".