How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15

"Wow"? you're the one saying there is evidence against a supernatural entity
why don't you show it?
was it just empty rhetoric?

Ok then, if lack of evidence makes belief unjustified how can you say that atheism is rational?
oh wait atheism is a "non-belief"

oh wait I just shytted on that
@stealthbomber are you seeing this?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Well considering that his religion has been documented with their opposition to science, I think this about the dumbest picture you have ever posted fellow Teufelshunden.

You and everyone in this thread takes him seriously. If his religion were opposed to science, he wouldn't have done what he did so, your criticism is just petty, untrue, and unnecessary.

You also take this very religious man seriously.
​

 

[NoMayo15]

So what you're saying is that you cannot be undecided on theism vs. atheism
or in other words, it's invalid to be undecided

so if someone told you "I'm just agnostic, I have zero leaning towards atheism or theism, I think both are simply subjective beliefs and I only accept the objective position of agnosticism" you'd say "that makes you an atheist"

Well, yes. The only requirement is to lack a belief in a God. I would probably ask them their thoughts on the origins of the universe, origins of life on Earth, etc. I don't think it's even possible to have zero leanings towards one or the other, unless they are like a solipsist or something, which is a whole other concept that I don't wanna go into. But if you don't have a belief in god, then you are, by definition, an atheist ... even if you don't accept the label.

your reasoning only makes sense if being a plain agnostic (not agnostic a/theist) just means not believing in God (therefore exactly the same as your definition of atheist) and ignoring the other half which is not believing that there is no God either and making no judgement in favor of theism or atheism, but simply acknowledging lack of knowledge and leaving it at that

Again, no. A plain agnostic has nothing to do with your belief in god. Only if you know if one exists, or whether or not you think the god question is a knowable. Not sure how many times I can say this.

that's a long way to say that you have to distort your definition considerably to reconcile your conflicting beliefs, which is what you did

No, you're misusing the term agnostic.

again with this "you're using the term atheist differently" crap; no, I stuck completely to your definition that you accept and showed you how it's in direct conflict with another one of your beliefs, which is that a/theism and a/gnosticism are independent. on one hand you say that any position on a/gnosticm does not define one's position on a/theism or result in a specific position on a/theism (or vice-versa, a/theism does not result in a specific position on a/gnosticism). on the other hand you say that when someone does not favor theism or atheism over the other and is agnostic, that person's agnosticism results in the position of atheism

Well no. I'm saying when people say they don't favor theism or atheism, they actually do. When people say they are agnostic, they have left their previous religion, and do not have a belief in God. Again, I'm speaking in generalities and someone could still hold to some theistic beliefs, so they could still be an agnostic theist. But GENERALLY SPEAKING, agnostics do not believe in God, and therefore are atheists. There is no contradiction there.

 

[NoMayo15]

@NoMayo15

"Wow"? you're the one saying there is evidence against a supernatural entity
why don't you show it?
was it just empty rhetoric?

Ok then, if lack of evidence makes belief unjustified how can you say that atheism is rational?
oh wait atheism is a "non-belief"

oh wait I just shytted on that
@stealthbomber are you seeing this?

When did you do that? Atheism is non-belief. You can use atheist and non-believer interchangeably.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You can use atheist and non-believer interchangeably.

You could, but that would be misleading since not all non-believers are atheists.​

 

[stealthbomber]

@NoMayo15

"Wow"? you're the one saying there is evidence against a supernatural entity
why don't you show it?
was it just empty rhetoric?

Ok then, if lack of evidence makes belief unjustified how can you say that atheism is rational?
oh wait atheism is a "non-belief"

oh wait I just shytted on that
@stealthbomber are you seeing this?

yeah...

@NoMayo15 your trying to generalize atheist and agnostic to the point that your clumping them together, when they're vastly different. agnostic doesn't mean you don't believe or that you don't know if its a valid question to ask. it means that you are truly not sure if there is a God or not. i doubt there are really agnostics true to the meaning of the word out there because most people have some sort of opinion either way. atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any deity, for any reason. the positions aren't one in the same.

and yes they all answer the same question. "do you believe in a God(s)?" yes (theism) no (atheism) or i don't know (agnosticism). it sounds like you're just reiterating something you heard on tv or on youtube.

 

[NoMayo15]

yeah...

@NoMayo15 your trying to generalize atheist and agnostic to the point that your clumping them together, when they're vastly different. agnostic doesn't mean you don't believe or that you don't know if its a valid question to ask. it means that you are truly not sure if there is a God or not. i doubt there are really agnostics true to the meaning of the word out there because most people have some sort of opinion either way. atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any deity, for any reason. the positions aren't one in the same.

and yes they all answer the same question. "do you believe in a God(s)?" yes (theism) no (atheism) or i don't know (agnosticism). it sounds like you're just reiterating something you heard on tv or on youtube.

I wasn't saying they are the same thing, just that they can overlap. Meaning one can be an agnostic and an atheist. Those terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Actually, it's you who's reiterating something from TV/Youtube. Agnosticism isn't some third option that addresses one's belief in god. It's non-answer. It's not a question of whether you know a god exists ... but whether you believe one does. That's what atheist/theism addresses. Agnosticism/Gnosticism answers something else.

Me clumping atheism and agnosticism together is just my personal observation of people who identify as agnostics generally aren't theists. I understand that they're different. A lot of the time, the people using the term agnostic doesn't even understand what the word means.

And yes, sometimes agnosticism also refers to someone who thinks the god question may be unknowable. Words sometimes have multiple meanings.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15 Congratulations you just admitted to everyone that you're retarded

You continue to take ludicrous positions and try to argue semantics instead of correctly defending your points (i.e. confusing my term "plain agnostic" to mean something other than an agnostic who is neither atheist nor atheist, even though I clarified it right after so you couldn't possibly fokk it up, yet somehow you still did)

A non-theist, non-atheist agnostic not only lacks a belief in God, but also lacks a belief that there is no God, to label someone like that an atheist is simply retarded

You're trying to take it back to "agnostic doesn't mean the same thing as atheist" even though I'm saying plain agnostic to mean "just agnostic, not atheist nor theist"

I'm not saying that agnostic means the same thing as atheist, that's a ludicrous position that you're supporting by saying that a non-atheist, non-theist agnostic is an atheist by default (reminder: you are actually saying this and it's retarded and you have no way to weasel out of it)

You've used this distraction technique too many times and it's becoming embarrassingly transparent

Your last points are a masked concession
Now you admit to speaking in generalities when before you made hard distinctions (you claimed every undecided agnostic is really an atheist)

"But GENERALLY SPEAKING, agnostics do not believe in God, and therefore are atheists. There is no contradiction there."

your generalities are worthless and this quote does not begin to explain your viewpoint that every non-theist, non-atheist agnostic is actually an atheist

like @Dafunkdoc_Unlimited says, not every non-believer is an atheist
a non-atheist, non-theist agnostic is a non-believer (and a non-believer in the belief that there is no God) but no one but you would consider such a person an atheist

you should contemplate this part of my last post further (reposted below) because all you had to say is basically that no agnostic can actually not favor neither atheism nor theism, which is total bullshyt - to be exact you said "when people say they don't favor theism or atheism, they actually do" which is a totally unsubstantiated claim (no rational person can take you seriously after that) (edit: wait, let's be fair, you did say "I don't think it's even possible", I guess that's some level of support for your claim )

you also basically claimed that all agnostics are former theists, which is a yet another terrible, unsubstantiated generalization

on one hand you say that any position on a/gnosticm does not define one's position on a/theism or result in a specific position on a/theism (or vice-versa, a/theism does not result in a specific position on a/gnosticism)

on the other hand you say that when someone does not favor theism or atheism over the other and is agnostic, that person's agnosticism results in the position of atheism

you either have to throw out the idea that atheism is just a "non-belief" and not a "no belief" or throw out the idea that a/gnosticism and a/theism are independent and unconnected

I think it's best to throw out the first idea

 

[Zach Lowe]

yeah...

@NoMayo15 your trying to generalize atheist and agnostic to the point that your clumping them together, when they're vastly different. agnostic doesn't mean you don't believe or that you don't know if its a valid question to ask. it means that you are truly not sure if there is a God or not. i doubt there are really agnostics true to the meaning of the word out there because most people have some sort of opinion either way. atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any deity, for any reason. the positions aren't one in the same.

and yes they all answer the same question. "do you believe in a God(s)?" yes (theism) no (atheism) or i don't know (agnosticism). it sounds like you're just reiterating something you heard on tv or on youtube.

don't even attempt this argument, he'll just say that a/gnosticism and a/theism are unrelated

but if you ask if a non-theist, non-atheist agnostic is an atheist, he'll be happy to draw relationships between a/gnosticism and a/theism in that situation let's focus on that part I wanna see what kind of bullshyt he can think up

Also, I'm not sure if he has had an original thought in this entire thread, all he does is restate atheist talking points without even noticing that they're contradictory

 

[stealthbomber]

I wasn't saying they are the same thing, just that they can overlap. Meaning one can be an agnostic and an atheist. Those terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Actually, it's you who's reiterating something from TV/Youtube. Agnosticism isn't some third option that addresses one's belief in god. It's non-answer. It's not a question of whether you know a god exists ... but whether you believe one does. That's what atheist/theism addresses. Agnosticism/Gnosticism answers something else.

Me clumping atheism and agnosticism together is just my personal observation of people who identify as agnostics generally aren't theists. I understand that they're different. A lot of the time, the people using the term agnostic doesn't even understand what the word means.

And yes, sometimes agnosticism also refers to someone who thinks the god question may be unknowable. Words sometimes have multiple meanings.

actually they are exclusive. if you're an atheist you dont believe in anything. if your an agnostic you dont know either way. i dont get why thats so difficult to understand. i kinda see what your saying that atheists are agnostic because they dont know either, but atheism is more of an aggressive position. "i DO NOT believe in anything" agnosticism is in a sense a cop out, your saying "i dont know so fukk it, maybe there is maybe there isnt" if you cant understand that than idk what to tell u.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

How can the extremely non-religious be taken seriously

All these idiots are blabbing on the internet forums / Youtube comments arguing against religion all day, acting like they're too smart to have religion

That's the thing my man.

We're not saying we're that smart, we're saying you're moronic. You really don't have to be that smart to look at the bible and be like

 

[Zach Lowe]

actually they are exclusive. if you're an atheist you dont believe in anything. if your an agnostic you dont know either way. i dont get why thats so difficult to understand. i kinda see what your saying that atheists are agnostic because they dont know either, but atheism is more of an aggressive position. "i DO NOT believe in anything" agnosticism is in a sense a cop out, your saying "i dont know so fukk it, maybe there is maybe there isnt" if you cant understand that than idk what to tell u.

He's conveniently ignoring the term agnostic as the vast majority of people use it in favor of a meaning that's more to his own advantage as a weak atheist

any objective source lists both usages, only biased pro-atheist sources with an agenda (like him for example) would reject the first and only list the second

He's also softening the term atheist from a no belief to a non-belief in order to classify more people in his category (don't believe in God? then you're one of us... we don't care if you don't believe that there is no God either, just be against theism and you're cool with us... it doesn't matter that you're also against atheism )

what you're saying doesn't support his pro-atheist viewpoint so he'll reject it no matter how logical it is (see how he still considers atheism rational, see how he thinks non-atheist, non-theist agnostics are actually atheists despite how it conflicts with his other belief that a/gnosticism and a/theism are unconnected)

Your method of classification is simple and correct. It gets to the point instead of setting the argument up for idiots like Mayo to argue endlessly about how they're unrelated

If you answer "I don't know" to "do you believe in God?" then you are agnostic, there's no reason why anyone should take issue with that. It matches entirely with the definition of agnosticism that he says (relating to knowledge).

Now if we're considering more nuanced things like agnostic a/theism, it makes agnosticism largely irrelevant because you may answer that question yes or no depending on if you're atheist or theist in addition to being agnostic.

So let's break it down
If you answer "I don't know" to "do you believe in God" you're agnostic. Reasons? You profess lack of sufficient knowledge (condition met for agnosticism) and you don't say actually answer the question with yes or no, which would mean a/theism (whether agnostic a/theism or not)

for any bystanders reading this thread now, Mayo says that someone who answers "I don't know" to "do you believe in God" (a non-atheist, non-theist agnostic) might as well answer "no" because that's what he really believes

he hasn't yet explained how he knows what another person really believes

 

[BlvdBrawler]

There are no 100% conclusive proofs to justify atheism either

atheism requires just as much faith as religion

without any faith either way the only possible position is agnosticism

You had me up till this post. I hear what you're saying, but you're wrong.

Your father.... how do you know he's your father? Did you do a DNA test, or do you call it based on the fact that you look like him, sound like him, and your family has told you that's your father? Based on what you're saying, the only possible position would be to claim you don't know who your father is, because you haven't verified it scientifically.

The thing is, we can't verify with complete veracity everything that surrounds us, so a big part of the time we go on what's considered "enough info" to make a decision. This isn't an uninformed decision, mind you, but think about how many things you personally know know with 100% certainty and then tell me that agnosticism is the only reasonable course.

 

[BlvdBrawler]

most of the time when people say they're atheist they don't mean that they're agnostic atheists, they mean classically atheist (gnostic atheist)

Link?

 

[MikelArteta]

How can pagans who indulge in filth and fornication be taken seriously?