How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[Zach Lowe]

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

weren't you just trying to school me on black and white?

you think there aren't varying degrees of atheism and gnosticism?

so you can't be less atheist than someone else who is more firmly set in believing that there is no God?

you can't be more certain that you know your belief is correct than another person?



is this too high level for you? we can stop here

 

[Zach Lowe]

I edited my post with the bolded quote

I realized I had a sentence in the middle that I didn't finish when I saw your error

 

[NoMayo15]

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

then you retreated into your current position

No, I did not. I only said atheism was the only reasonable position ... From that I suppose one could conclude that I was an atheist, but regardless, I didn't explicitly state strong nor weak atheism. YOU ASSUMED I MEANT STRONG ATHEISM BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DEFINITION YOU ACCEPT. Again, I ask you, you do realize that words have multiple meanings, correct? And sometimes, words even change meanings, depending on how people use them. So, when I just say "atheism" that could mean a multitude of things. But you are so steadfast in clinging to this one specific definition, that you can't see how wrong you've been these past few hours.

tell me how they're mutually

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

You are so all over the place, I can't even understand what you're talking about. You quoted my post, I figured you were laughing at what you thought was a typo from me.

 

[Zach Lowe]

I said they AREN'T mutually exclusive.

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

Wow...

You are dumber than I thought.

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

we can stop now before you contradict yourself again

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15
No I didn't assume anything
you indicated strong atheism yourself with your nonsensical "atheism is the purely rational position" statement

an agnostic atheist would never say such a thing
if you're agnostic atheist your agnosticism is what defines you and your atheism is only your belief

how can you say that your own belief is the only rational position when for you it's only a belief? you're not even fully convinced of your belief and it's still the only rational position? does that make any sense? please respond

you self defined as an atheist and you made an extremely statement in favor of atheism that an agnostic atheist would not take

and you're saying I assumed?

 

[ThaGlow]

Damn, you guys have strayed from the original post, lol. Its a definitions debate now.

The original post is a legit observation though. People who follow the bible can't even decide whether its literal or not. On top of that, there's a lot of holes in it. Then it gets really silly if you ask believers if they believe in angels, demons, talking snakes, Noah's ark, Adam & Eve, incest, etc. Then there's the thing with free will vs predestination.

But I got plenty friends who are Christians and are obviously good people. I don't ever knock them for it, just let them do them. But if I was asked to speak on it or talk about it, I gotta bring up those points, even though they've been debated to death already.

 

[NoMayo15]

weren't you just trying to school me on black and white?

you think there aren't varying degrees of atheism and gnosticism?

so you can't be less atheist than someone else who is more firmly set in believing that there is no God?

you can't be more certain that you know your belief is correct than another person?



is this too high level for you? we can stop here

Google weak/strong atheism or weak/strong theism. You see several links addressing or defining those terms. Google high gnosticism ... nothing. It's a term that's never been used until you said it. If you're going to make up phrases, I'd at least ask that you explain wtf you mean.

It's obvious that you don't want to have an actual discussion, and learn about something. You're more interested in trying to play games, post smileys and troll.

 

[Zach Lowe]

You are so all over the place, I can't even understand what you're talking about.

an incomplete sentence hardly takes away from that knockout hit

read the post above this quoted post for the explanation

 

[NoMayo15]

No I didn't assume anything
you indicated strong atheism yourself with your nonsensical "atheism is the purely rational position" statement

an agnostic atheist would never say such a thing
if you're agnostic atheist your agnosticism is what defines you and your atheism is only your belief

Again with the No True Scotsman fallacy! Until tonight, you didn't even know what an agnostic atheist was, so who are you to say what one would and wouldn't say?!

And an agnostic atheist did just say it, and I stand behind it. It's the only reasonable position out of the four. Atheism is more reasonable than theism. Agnosticism is more rational than gnosticism.

how can you say that your own belief is the only rational position when for you it's only a belief? you're not even fully convinced of your belief and it's still the only rational position? does that make any sense? please respond

Because I acknowledge that we don't know everything (hence, my agnosticism) and ultimately, there might be something supernatural that we don't yet know about. But as it stands now, there isn't really strong evidence to support a belief in God. Theists address this problem with faith, but I reject faith as a valid vehicle to find truth.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Zach Lowe]

Google weak/strong atheism or weak/strong theism. You see several links addressing or defining those terms. Google high gnosticism ... nothing. It's a term that's never been used until you said it. If you're going to make up phrases, I'd at least ask that you explain wtf you mean.

another way to put high gnosticism could be weak agnosticism which has lots of results and its own Wikipedia page

or strong gnosticism instead since the agnosticism would have to be in the negative, which would be weak beyond weak

I'm not saying these are popular terms

if you can be weak or strong in your atheism/theism why can't you have varying degrees of a/gnosticism?

you're resorting to "the terms you're using aren't the ones atheists typically use" because you can't argue against my points

 

[Zach Lowe]

Again with the No True Scotsman fallacy! Until tonight, you didn't even know what an agnostic atheist was, so who are you to say what one would and wouldn't say?!

And an agnostic atheist did just say it, and I stand behind it. It's the only reasonable position out of the four. Atheism is more reasonable than theism. Agnosticism is more rational than gnosticism.



Because I acknowledge that we don't know everything (hence, my agnosticism) and ultimately, there might be something supernatural that we don't yet know about. But as it stands now, there isn't really strong evidence to support a belief in God. Theists address this problem with faith, but I reject faith as a valid vehicle to find truth.

[/QUOTE]

How would you know what I didn't know before tonight? For someone who rejects faith you sure do come up with a lot of ideas with no proof

I did know what an agnostic atheist was, why else would I automatically respond to that stupid graph by saying I'm aware of it? you can believe I'm lying though but that would be another proofless idea

Agnosticism is more purely rational than gnosticism but in light of agnosticism you cannot come up with a conclusion on theism vs atheism that's anything more than a personal belief

you don't believe that your personal belief on atheism vs theism is widely relevant for others so why does it become "more rational" when you suddenly take yourself out of the equation?

you simultaneously admit that your atheism is only a personal conviction (due to your agnosticism) and support it as a "rational" position for everyone (wtf?)

 

[NoMayo15]

another way to put high gnosticism could be weak agnosticism which has lots of results and its own Wikipedia page

or strong gnosticism instead since the agnosticism would have to be in the negative, which would be weak beyond weak

I'm not saying these are popular terms

if you can be weak or strong in your atheism/theism why can't you have varying degrees of a/gnosticism?

Apparently, you can be. But what point are you making? There are varying degrees in agnosticism and atheism. But both strong and weak agnostics are still agnostics! The question there is whether or not we can ever know if a god exists. You're the one saying a weak atheist is an agnostic, and a strong atheist is the only true atheist. You're still wrong. Both weak and strong atheists are atheists!

you're resorting to "the terms you're using aren't the ones atheists typically use" because you can't argue against my points

Well, no, that's not what I was doing at all. I was just asking you to define the terms "low atheism" / "high gnosticism". I didn't want to assume you meant anything you didn't mean. And I couldn't easily look up a quick definition of those terms else where. They're not commonly used terms, period, so how the fukk was I suppose to know what you mean when you're making shyt up?

 

[Versa]

Tall Israeli bodied this thread something serious.

 

[NoMayo15]

How would you know what I didn't know before tonight? For someone who rejects faith you sure do come up with a lot of ideas with no proof

I did know what an agnostic atheist was, why else would I automatically respond to that stupid graph by saying I'm aware of it? you can believe I'm lying though but that would be another proofless idea

Agnosticism is more purely rational than gnosticism but in light of agnosticism you cannot come up with a conclusion on theism vs atheism that's anything more than a personal belief

you don't believe that your personal belief on atheism vs theism is widely relevant for others so why does it become "more rational" when you suddenly take yourself out of the equation?

you simultaneously admit that your atheism is only a personal conviction (due to your agnosticism) and support it as a "rational" position for everyone (wtf?)

You may have heard of the terms, but by talking to you tonight, it couldn't be any more obvious that you don't understand what they mean.

You can easily come to a conclusion on theism vs. atheism. Do you know how? There's no objective evidence for the existence of a god. Does that prove that one does not exist? No. But it's not reasonable to believe in something when there is no evidence of it. The time when its reasonable to believe is when there's strong evidence that the claim is likely to be true. And if you also agree that belief is an active thing, then you have to realize that disbelief is the only alternative option. NOT a positive claim that no gods exist, but a disbelief in this claim until other evidence is presented.

I don't follow the bolded. Explain that again.

 

[Zach Lowe]

Apparently, you can be. But what point are you making? There are varying degrees in agnosticism and atheism. But both strong and weak agnostics are still agnostics! The question there is whether or not we can ever know if a god exists. You're the one saying a weak atheist is an agnostic, and a strong atheist is the only true atheist. You're still wrong.



Well, no. I was just asking you to define the terms "low atheism" / "high gnosticism". I didn't want to assume you meant anything you didn't mean.

those are not far from the common definitions you'll find on Wikipedia and other such places
a weak atheist is defined as "a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none" so there's an obvious similarity to agnostic atheist, I'd even say that the majority who fit one definition will probably fit the other

actually an agnostic atheist automatically fits the definition for weak atheist
while a weak atheist may or may not also be an agnostic atheist (most likely is though)

i'm uncovering more nuances in this atheism thing than you are

strong atheists and weak atheists are both technically atheists but don't you think that strong atheists are truer atheists in a sense? or stronger?

when I say strong/weak atheist I'm not referring to any connection to agnosticism, I'm simply describing how theist or atheist someone is without any relation to agnosticism (which is the rule you must follow if you are to consider a/theism and a/gnosticism as unrelated, not mutually exclusive concepts)

well then why doesn't someone who is a mild atheist but gnostic in his mild atheism make any sense? or a lesser example, an extreme, very strong atheist who is also agnostic?

these things make no sense, so again, the argument that they're not mutually exclusive is weak because there are scenarios that make no sense

if they were truly mutually exclusive every possibility would make sense