How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[Zach Lowe]

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

you're saying I'm a moron and you dapped this sarcastic post thinking it was sincere

it doesn't support your position so idk why you would dap it unless you thought it wasn't meant sarcastically

So scientists' personal, unproven thoughts are also science

there's no need for them to adhere to the scientific process and to be peer reviewed

ok

anyway, somehow I doubt that you have any understanding of any religious text, not just the Bible, and you're just basing your opinion on fringe, uneducated readings/interpretations of a few select passages

your position is likely influenced by fundamentalists who take everything in the Bible literally (or another religious text, same points apply), yet you are doing the same thing they're doing to make up your mind against them

if you choose not to follow any specific religion that's on you, no one's telling you that they know the truth with 100% certainty and that you cannot deny it as a person with a brain

neither theism nor atheism can be conclusively justified, which is why some of us in this thread have been saying the only purely rational position is agnosticism, where you profess lack of knowledge and don't make the call on God or no God (to be precise and to rule out agnostic a/theism, you might call this non-theist, non-atheist agnosticism - for all purposes except for talking to the poster Mayo on the Coli just agnosticism will be fine though ).

 

[BlvdBrawler]

you're saying I'm a moron and you dapped this sarcastic post thinking it was sincere

it doesn't support your position so idk why you would dap it unless you thought it wasn't meant sarcastically

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

It sounds like you don't either, so at least there's symmetry.

For the record, you have no idea what my position is.

 

[Zach Lowe]

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.

this does not compute

the only 100% objective truth we have at our disposal is mathematics, and that's just a construct

any and everything we know from science could be overturned, it's only mathematics that is proven forever once proven

regardless, the evidence one could have that his father is actually his father without a DNA test far surpasses the evidence one could have that God does not exist

inb4 you list a million reasons why a God of your own imposed limitations cannot exist

none of them could begin to objectively justify atheism

either way you go on the God vs. no God issue you're not being rational, you have to leave the boundaries of rationality to make a call on that

Link?

my point there was that people who self-describe as "atheist" are "gnostic enough" to leave out the "agnostic" label, so putting them in a category with a person who has the mildest atheist leaning and puts his agnosticism ahead of that slight atheist bent is dishonest

most people who profess atheism and want to endlessly argue about it online are far from what an agnostic atheist should be like according to their position

of course they're technically agnostic since they cannot possibly be gnostic, but once again, we're using the terms in a useful manner here, not in some manner designed to support our own biases like Mayo does with every single word

 

[BlvdBrawler]

this does not compute

the only 100% objective truth we have at our disposal is mathematics, and that's just a construct

any and everything we know from science could be overturned, it's only mathematics that is proven forever once proven

regardless, the evidence one could have that his father is actually his father without a DNA test far surpasses the evidence one could have that God does not exist

inb4 you list a million reasons why a God of your own imposed limitations cannot exist

none of them could begin to objectively justify atheism

either way you go on the God vs. no God issue you're not being rational, you have to leave the boundaries of rationality to make a call on that



my point there was that people who self-describe as "atheist" are "gnostic enough" to leave out the "agnostic" label, so putting them in a category with a person who has the mildest atheist leaning and puts his agnosticism ahead of that slight atheist bent is dishonest

most people who profess atheism and want to endlessly argue about it online are far from what an agnostic atheist should be like according to their position

of course they're technically agnostic since they cannot possibly be gnostic, but once again, we're using the terms in a useful manner here, not in some manner designed to support our own biases like Mayo does with every single word

If you say so.

Also, you're trying too hard to be intellectual. You could eat a frito right now, and you're telling me that you wouldn't be able to know objectively 100% that you just ate the frito w/o some kind of mathematical proof?

Log off breh, it's not that serious.

 

[the cac mamba]

if you choose not to follow any specific religion that's on you, no one's telling you that they know the truth with 100% certainty and that you cannot deny it as a person with a brain

.

have you read a slaimon post? mr somebody? no one thinks that they know the truth with 100% certainty? what the fukk are you talking about

 

[Zach Lowe]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

It sounds like you don't either, so at least there's symmetry.

For the record, you have no idea what my position is.

You come in here taking a pro-atheism or anti-theism stance and you dap up my post mocking someone with the same position as you (not saying I know everything about your position but I can logically say you're on the pro-atheism/anti-theism side based on information you've already given)

it seems like the sarcasm was lost on you

 

[BlvdBrawler]

You come in here taking a pro-atheism or anti-theism stance and you dap up my post mocking someone with the same position as you (not saying I know everything about your position but I can logically say you're on the pro-atheism/anti-theism side based on information you've already given)

it seems like the sarcasm was lost on you

Not at all. All I said was it doesn't take a genius to look at the bible and see that it doesn't add up. Everything else is conjecture on your part.

 

[Zach Lowe]

have you read a slaimon post? mr somebody? no one thinks that they know the truth with 100% certainty? what the fukk are you talking about

maybe you're misunderstanding them

ask them if they think they know the truth with 100% certainty

matter of fact I'll mention them here

@Slaimon @Mr. Somebody

 

[Zach Lowe]

Not at all. All I said was it doesn't take a genius to look at the bible and see that it doesn't add up. Everything else is conjecture on your part.

Well now you've made like 4 to 5 posts challenging me so I have more information to rely on

So at this point if it's conjecture it's reasonable conjecture

now that I know you have 5 or so posts against me and one dap for me, that one dap is even more of an outlier

and since I haven't switched sides in this argument, I don't see how you can be against me and for me

ehh whatever, I'm just gonna assume that was a sincere dap even if it makes little sense to dap your opponent in an argument

 

[Zach Lowe]

If you say so.

Also, you're trying too hard to be intellectual. You could eat a frito right now, and you're telling me that you wouldn't be able to know objectively 100% that you just ate the frito w/o some kind of mathematical proof?

Log off breh, it's not that serious.

If I'm trying too hard to be intellectual then you're trying too hard to be anti-intellectual

You know what I mean about mathematics and you probably know it's right too

As for your frito example, I could eat a frito and be pretty certain that I ate one, but that doesn't make it an undeniable truth

Some idiot could call my frito consumption into question and I wouldn't be able to provide undeniable proof to refute that (I might provide strong proof i.e. physical evidence, but some idiot could possibly deny that too; the only objectively proven knowledge is in math)

And I think of proving as something done mainly for the sake of other people
If I ate the frito or believe I ate the frito and I'm the only one who cares then what's the use of thinking about whether I can prove it

 

[Mr. Somebody]

maybe you're misunderstanding them

ask them if they think they know the truth with 100% certainty

matter of fact I'll mention them here

@Slaimon @Mr. Somebody

The truth about what?

 

[the cac mamba]

maybe you're misunderstanding them

ask them if they think they know the truth with 100% certainty

matter of fact I'll mention them here

@Slaimon @Mr. Somebody

im about to respond to 50 cent stan's claim that "muslims have flaws but islam does not"

this is the problem i have with religion. instead of being humble enough to admit that we dont know for certain how/why we are here, these religious people are absolutely, 100 percent certain that their holy texts are the true infallible words of god. but that cant be true of you look at how many holy texts there have been with different truths

for example : slaimon, as a muslim, has claimed many times that jesus is not god. christians believe that jesus is god. therefore either one or both of those religions are wrong, and im leaning towards both

 

[NoMayo15]

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.

The only thing atheists don't believe in are gods. I agree that, colloquially, people sometimes use the term 'agnostic' the way you describe, but that's not the only way it's used. They AREN'T exclusive because someone can BELIEVE in God, but ALSO think the existence of God is unknown/unknowable. Inversely, someone can both not believe in the god claims, and ALSO think it's existence is unknown. Do you think this cannot be?

Also, I'm not saying an agnostic is automatically an atheist. Generally, however, they lack a belief in a god. That is NOT the same thing as committing to the nonexistence of a god. I'm so tired of arguing semantics with you guys, I've said the same thing over and over in this thread.