How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15
You seem to have trouble understanding my point you're replying to

You said a/gnosticism and a/theism are mututally exclusive, right?

Well can you be the most extreme atheist possible and still be agnostic? You really really really believe there is no God more than any atheist in the world but you still think you can't know?

Can you be the mildest atheist possible, just a tiny bit over the tipping point between atheism and theism and be gnostic? You have the mildest belief that there is no God but you claim that you know for sure that there isn't one?

If they're truly mutually exclusive and not interconnected in any way these possibilities would make sense

 

[NoMayo15]

you're an idiot who didn't even have his position clearly set until I forced you to pick one and you're still holding onto this "badass/hardcore intellectual atheist" position bytch please you already admitted that you're also agnostic your hardcore atheist pass has been revoked

You still don't even understand my position. How can you speak on who's the idiot?

you're talking about intellectual honesty and your first post in this thread was that atheism (with no qualifier) is the only rational position

It is.

now I forced you to admit that it's really agnosticism

No... you're still arguing that agnosticism is this third option that absolves one from picking a side. This is an incorrect train of thought. Gnosticism addresses one's knowledge. Theism addresses one's belief of god(s). Out of the two possible stances one could have of a belief in god, atheism is the most rational.

you're disappointing me with your position changes

I never changed my position. You had an misconception of what an atheist meant. When I'm talking about an atheist, I'm talking about Stephen Hawking, Christopher Hutchins. Your idea of an atheist is someone who is as fundamental about their disbelief as, say, an Evangelical Christian. That's not the norm of atheism, and I'm not even sure if there are many people like that. You should consider that your definition of "true" atheism is wrong.

how can you say that your doubt or lack thereof cannot effect your beliefs? in your fantasy world they're completely separate no, they are associated

I'm not saying my disbelief doesn't influence other beliefs -- rather, I'm saying those separate beliefs aren't atheism. My acceptance of the theory of evolution might be informed by my atheism, but it's not included in my atheism. Again, this is a bit nuanced and may be going over your head. I apologize, friend.

I guess this is the position you find yourself in being a fierce atheist but being forced to acknowledge that agnosticism is the only dispassionate and rational position free of personal belief

Hmmm... well, I'd say agnosticism atheism is the most reasonable position to hold. You still don't seem to understand what that term means.

 

[Mowgli]

@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

Damn cac mamba posting career gettin shelved like wack albums. I expect some scatter brained thoughts after this post from that cac, mamba.

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

Again, you're using atheism when you should be saying agnosticism

Agnosticism says that both sides (atheism/theism) haven't proven their belief

Atheism makes its own counterclaim to theism that there is no God

if all atheism did was deny theism and not make an opposite claim itself then it would be pure agnosticism (agnosticism without leaning toward theism or atheism)

and that is the only 100% rational and dispassionate position, not agnostic atheism which is what you're professing now

your agnosticism is rational but your atheism is an unproven belief just like theism

just by using the agnostic qualifier you're showing that you understand this yet you're still clinging to your past statements which you've backed down from, now you're just sticking to them for trolling or for ego reasons

No Mayo is right, there are different types of atheism, did you do any research into your claims or are you just assuming you know everything about atheism? I mean like 3 pages arguing over the definition is asinine

 

[NoMayo15]

Again, you're using atheism when you should be saying agnosticism

Agnosticism says that both sides (atheism/theism) haven't proven their belief

Atheism makes its own counterclaim to theism that there is no God

if all atheism did was deny theism and not make an opposite claim itself then it would be pure agnosticism (agnosticism without leaning toward theism or atheism)

No, they do not, and no it would not.

Atheism refers to belief. Agnosticism refers to knowledge.


and that is the only 100% rational and dispassionate position, not agnostic atheism which is what you're professing now

your agnosticism is rational but your atheism is an unproven belief just like theism

just by using the agnostic qualifier you're showing that you understand this yet you're still clinging to your past statements which you've backed down from, now you're just sticking to them for trolling or for ego reasons

No, it isn't. If you'd read up on atheism, you'd see that you are wrong.

 

[NoMayo15]

You said a/gnosticism and a/theism are mututally exclusive, right?

No, you pinhead. I said they AREN'T mutually exclusive. Now, do you understand what that means? I've said this in multiple posts now. I'm not reading the rest until you can demonstrate you understand what this means.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15
stop breaking my posts up you're making it harder to reply

I fully understand your position, you're an agnostic atheist who wants to pose as a strong atheist for trolling purposes / for your own ego

Atheism is no more rational than theism
You cannot dispassionately/rationally conclude that there is no God any more than theists can dispassionately/rationally conclude that there is one

Agnosticism says that you cannot know for sure and that is the only completely dispassionate position

You say atheism is more rational than theism to you but dispassionately and rationally you cannot accept either one

You can't accept gnosticism either, you have to accept agnosticism (being completely dispassionate/rational)

is atheism is the purely rational position and being neither atheist or theist while being agnostic isn't, then why doesn't a source that aims to be impartial like say Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia push atheism? You say it's the pure rational position but no source that attempts to be purely rational and dispassionate advocates atheism, it holds the purely rational position that I am describing (neither atheist or theist but agnostic)

You might not have changed your positions but it sure looks like it with your amateur argumentative skills (what kind of idiot has to correct his self-definitions )

if you're right about the beliefs of these famous so-called atheists then there must not be any true atheists, just others like you who are agnostic atheists but argue for atheism as if you weren't agnostic

if a/gnosticism didn't influence a/theism then you could have someone who's very mildly atheist and still gnostic which makes no sense

lol at talking about going over heads when your response to one of my last posts was the smiley

 

[Zach Lowe]

No, you pinhead. I said they AREN'T mutually exclusive. Now, do you understand what that means? I've said this in multiple posts now. I'm not reading the rest until you can demonstrate you understand what this means.

read the post again with "aren't" in place of are

you're saying that a/theism and a/gnosticism are not necessarily related or connected in any way which makes no sense if you read the rest of my post

if we are to consider agnosticism and theism as two separate spectrums then we should be able to pick any position on that two dimensional space and say "yeah that makes sense "

what if you pick very low atheism and very high gnosticism
that makes no sense

not so mutually exclusive now huh?

 

[NoMayo15]

I fully understand your position, you're an agnostic atheist who wants to pose as a strong atheist for trolling purposes / for your own ego

I've never said I was a strong atheist. You're asserting that I am. You DON'T understand what I'm saying to you. You don't understand that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. It's like talking to a brick wall, honestly.

 

[NoMayo15]

read the post again with "aren't" in place of are

Did you really just ... are you seriously confused by the word "aren't".

Wow...

You are dumber than I thought.



BTW, there are huge chunks of your post I'm not reading because you can't follow basic English.

 

[Zach Lowe]

Translation in case you're retarded:

That little graph showing two independent axes for a/theism and a/gnosticism is inaccurate, it's just a simple way to show four possibilities

how could you have the slightest inclination towards atheism and be gnostic
that makes no sense

unless every possibility on that graph makes sense how can we consider the two as completely separate concepts

it's obvious that they're interconnected and the graph is a very idiotic model

 

[Zach Lowe]

I've never said I was a strong atheist. You're asserting that I am. You DON'T understand what I'm saying to you. You don't understand that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. It's like talking to a brick wall, honestly.

You indicated that you were a strong atheist with your first posts

then you retreated into your current position

I never labelled you as a strong atheist, you're making up that accusation

now you're resorting to saying I made false claims?



"You don't understand that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive."

you just clowned me for misinterpreting the term mutually exclusive one time and now you turn around and say the bolded?

you mean they aren't

 

[NoMayo15]

you're saying that a/theism and a/gnosticism are not necessarily related or connected in any way which makes no sense if you read the rest of my post

if we are to consider agnosticism and theism as two separate spectrums then we should be able to pick any position on that two dimensional space and say "yeah that makes sense "

what if you pick very low atheism and very high gnosticism
that makes no sense

not so mutually exclusive now huh?

What do you mean by "low atheism" ... "high Gnosticism"? These are nonsensical terms.

 

[Zach Lowe]

Did you really just ... are you seriously confused by the word "aren't".

Wow...

You are dumber than I thought.



BTW, there are huge chunks of your post I'm not reading because you can't follow basic English.

you just followed up your correction of my mistake
with your own identical mistake

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

Anyways, before Israeli derailed this whole thread... I wouldnt say super religious people shouldnt always be taken seriously. There are plenty of otherwise intelligent religious people. A good majority of scientific contributions from the past were made by religious people.

That being said atheists are on average smarter then theists, need proof? lank, but i guess the physical proof is israeli

Liberals and atheists smarter? Intelligent people have values novel in human evolutionary history, study finds