How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[Zach Lowe]

Dont make such generalizations without presenting data.

Also every single one of those four positions requires belief without proof or evidence.... Which is essentially faith. Just because you dont claim to know the truth doesnt mean that you're without faith on your position (there is a god, there is no god).

There are various types of agnosticism of course, but at the end of the day your skepticism is something of a belief in its own right.

Its all semantics of course.

You know the generalization is right though

and I agree with the bolded 100%

except that pure skepticism would be agnostic without any theist or atheist twist

this fool thinks that atheism qualifies as pure skepticism

 

[NoMayo15]

Do you want me to drop money to take a poll or something?

When people say they're theists do they most often mean gnostic or agnostic theists?

Now you're holding onto this graph because I destroyed your "atheism is purely neutral" argument

I bring it up because you are just factually wrong, and it's informing your belief on how much "faith" an atheist has. Most atheist identify with weak (agnostic) atheism as opposed to strong (gnostic) atheism. Your belief in the opposite is why you also believe it requires just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. You'd find many more theists who claim they KNOW their god is real than atheists who KNOW god doesn't exist. Would you disagree with that?

 

[NoMayo15]

You know the generalization is right though

and I agree with the bolded 100%

except that pure skepticism would be agnostic without any theist or atheist twist

this fool thinks that atheism qualifies as pure skepticism

Atheism is an application of skepticism towards theistic claims. Disbelief in theistic claims is NOT the same as a belief that theistic claims are false.

When you understand the difference between these ideas, you'll understand why atheism doesn't require faith

 

[Zach Lowe]

I bring it up because you are just factually wrong, and it's informing your belief on how much "faith" an atheist has. Most atheist identify with weak (agnostic) atheism as opposed to strong (gnostic) atheism. Your belief in the opposite is why you also believe it requires just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist. You'd find many more theists who claim they KNOW their god is real than atheists who KNOW god doesn't exist. Would you disagree with that?

You said I shouldn't generalize and now you're doing it

for atheism to not be considered a positive claim that there is no God it has to be qualified (and moved from the position of what people consider true atheism)

i.e. agnostic atheist

which is now what you're admitting

if someone cared about the a/gnostic distinction they would include it in their self definitions, but most atheists call themselves simply that

so they either are classically atheist (gnostic) or don't care about that distinction, which limits their self definition to simply believing that there is no God, which is closer to gnostic atheism (I know there is no God and I don't think there is) than to agnostic theism (I don't know if there is a God but I don't think there is)

 

[Zach Lowe]

Atheism is an application of skepticism towards theistic claims. Disbelief in theistic claims is NOT the same as a belief that theistic claims are false.

When you understand the difference between these ideas, you'll understand why atheism doesn't require faith

Your definition of disbelief is false and doesn't apply to anything

so if I'm doing a scientific experiment I'm supposed to practice disbelief and I'm supposed to be dispassionate

according to your flawed definition of disbelief I'm supposed to believe in the opposite of what my experiment is attempting to uncover

Qualified, weakened, and not real atheism does not require faith
Real atheism does require faith

 

[Zach Lowe]

this fool isn't even a real atheist why didn't I realize this sooner

 

[Zach Lowe]

You'd find many more theists who claim they KNOW their god is real than atheists who KNOW god doesn't exist. Would you disagree with that?

Irrelevant and stupid question

There are more theists than atheists in general so of course there are more gnostic theists than gnostic atheists

 

[NoMayo15]

You said I shouldn't generalize and now you're doing it

for atheism to not be considered a positive claim that there is no God it has to be qualified (and moved from the position of what people consider true atheism)

i.e. agnostic atheist

which is now what you're admitting

if someone cared about the a/gnostic distinction they would include it in their self definitions, but most atheists call themselves simply that

so they either are classically atheist (gnostic) or don't care about that distinction, which limits their self definition to simply believing that there is no God, which is closer to gnostic atheism (I know there is no God and I don't think there is) than to agnostic theism (I don't know if there is a God but I don't think there is)

No, I said you are pulling information out your ass, and asked you to provide a source.

In the real world, it's common to find people who not only believe in God, but claim they KNOW there is a God ... and it's the God they believe in. Atheists tend to not assume or pretend to know the answer to everything. Generally, atheists are weak atheists, and reserve judgement on the question of if they know a God exists. Dawkins, Hitchens ... Bill Maher! All these prominent atheists are de facto atheists, as most are. I don't know where you get the idea that most atheists are "classical atheists". It's just demonstrably wrong.

Most atheists don't add the agnostic because they don't have to. They are still atheists regardless of being weak or strong.

 

[NoMayo15]

Your definition of disbelief is false and doesn't apply to anything

so if I'm doing a scientific experiment I'm supposed to practice disbelief and I'm supposed to be dispassionate

according to your flawed definition of disbelief I'm supposed to believe in the opposite of what my experiment is attempting to uncover

No you idiot, that's exactly my point. YOU'RE saying you should believe the opposite is true for your experiment. I'M saying you should not assume to know the truth until it's proven. Atheism isn't saying theism is untrue. It's saying theism is unproven, and therefore should not be accepted as true.

Qualified, weakened, and not real atheism does not require faith
Real atheism does require faith

There is no real/fake atheism - Get that out of your head. There's strong and weak. Just like someone can believe in God, but not claim to know for certain, someone can disbelieve in God claims, but not claim to know for certain.

BTW, look up the No True Scotsman fallacy. You're committing it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15

Why don't you retreat even more

I thought you were atheist

you're only an agnostic atheist

what a cop out

Atheism does say theism is untrue
your weak brand of "atheism" (actually much closer to agnosticism) might allow you to dance around these fallacies that you couldn't if you were a real atheist (one who says there is no God)

you say there is no proof of a God or of no God and you simply have a personal belief that there is no God

you're not an atheist as the vast majority of people define them

you're just a joke

figure yourself out and get back to me

you're just an agnostic who calls himself atheist

for the last time, atheism is not neutral, it's in the negative
perhaps if atheism literally meant "without theism" you would have a point but that would mean that you don't follow any particular brand of theism, not that you believe that there is no God

very disgusting, poor defences of agnostic atheism posting as atheism ITT

Edit: and the link to your "fallacy" says it's not a formal fallacy

 

[Zach Lowe]

at this fake ass atheist crippling the definition of atheism just so he can call himself one

 

[Zach Lowe]

People wanna call themselves atheist instead of agnostic so they can front like they have firm convictions

but when confronted they cop pleas "I'm agnostic atheist though "

 

[the cac mamba]

people listen to stand up comedians for philosophical and religious opinions



this is the level of thought we're on in the higher learning section?

give me one reason why a standup comedian is less credible than a preacher

 

[the cac mamba]

imo the whole "anti religious beliefs" part of atheism stems from all the bullshyt we see religion cause and the fact that we just have to deal with it because "thats their faith". the anti-god sentiment is a result of the anti-reaction to what we see resulting from these manmade religions on earth

for example (thats all it is)

there are plenty of violent muslims who are willing to martyr themselves and commit violent acts because they "know" that god will reward them in the afterlife. meanwhile, there are plenty of nonviolent muslims who practice their religion peacefully.

but why should we be subject to the religiously driven violence just so that people can also peacefully believe in these idiotic fairytales? the negatives far outweigh the positives

 

[Zach Lowe]

give me one reason why a standup comedian is less credible than a preacher

a preacher is an expert on his religion

a stand up comedian is a stand up comedian