Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/10/11 11:30 AM, Heyno wrote::

Here's the truth; trolling is a art.

Not only that, but it's a song.

A strawman argument derives from the ancient art of practicing swordplay against straw dummies.

It is the act of setting up an intentionally weak opposing view with the purpose of then refuting it, making your stance seem all the stronger.

Commonly used by people who either are A. misinformed about the opposing view to themselves, or B. are liars who know full well what they are doing, but do so anyhow in order to make themselves seem more credible to the willfully ignorant.

Here are some examples that have been used on me.

"So you want marijuana to be legalized. Tell me what the hell the positive is in the entire world being constantly high out of their minds and not being able to function?"

"So you want God kept out of the government. Tell me, why do you hate god?"

"So you want gay people to be able to marry, why don't you want the human race to populate?"

And so on, and so forth. These arguments are usually followed with a facepalm and an exclamation of, "I never said that!" I know I'm not the only person this shit has been used against, so I'm making a call for people to do their parts in calling strawman argument users out on their bullshit. I'm sick of people making shit up about an opposing view, and then pointing to this made up thing and going, "See? These guys are douchebags." No. YOU guys are the douchebags.

This is a rant, I know, and a lot of people could literally give two shits about my opinion on this subject, but god fucking dammit, not a whole lot pisses me off more than this intellectual dishonesty that borders on trolling so much I'm forced to take it seriously until the user yells "trololol."

At 3/9/11 04:38 PM, Gagsy wrote::

Because the idea of nothing simply terrifys me. Not just my death, I can deal with that, but everyone elses ever in the world, in the universe when there is truly nothing. It just makes me depressed.

Hm. To each their own I suppose. If it frightens you and not me, then what can I say? I simply offer the suggestion that there is nothing to be AFRAID of, merely what you percieve to be frightening. Just a thought. I know it's not going to change your mind on the matter, but maybe it will ease you a little.

At 3/9/11 03:50 PM, Gagsy wrote: I already don't believe in an afterlife.

That thought depresses me too much.

Strange. Why does it depress you? It excites me. It makes me excited that this is my only life, hence, I should live it as happily as I can. Also, I postulate that eternal life would be equally, if not more depressing. Imagine living a million years. Then for a trillion after that, and a quadrillion after that, with eternity left. That would be, for me, very torturous.

At least if there is no afterlife, we aren't going to be able to be depressed when we're dead, because we're simply dead.

At 3/9/11 03:41 PM, freevideogames wrote:

At 3/9/11 02:39 PM, Luis wrote: I wish gangs were more like the gangs in the movie The Warriors. Itd be so awesome if there was like a gang with facepaint and baseball uniforms, or ones in rollerskates.

Gangs these days have no creativity. Wow lets all wear the same color baggy jeans. Fuck that shit. Put a little creativity and glamour into your gang.

In Spain there are gangs that mostly fight using nunchuks and katanas

The Triad and Yakuza already have that market cornered. There's another gang in New York that uses exclusively machetes. He's talking about some REAL gimmicks, like REALLY unique shit. Think Road Warrior costumes and whatnot.

At 3/9/11 03:17 PM, Luis wrote:

At 3/9/11 03:11 PM, Zendra wrote:

At 3/9/11 03:08 PM, Luis wrote:

At 3/9/11 03:02 PM, Gagsy wrote: But Luis remember London, singing together? Our boobs totally touched and we had a moment there.

wus a year ago luv. ive changed

What no boobs anymore?

nah those are there... i went through with the full sex change

And this kind of exchange is why even if mods hate me, I still love them.

Hide your kids, hide your wives, hide your husbands cause he's rapin e'rybody up in here.

EpicFail. That's not the question I asked. :P

Though interesting statement nonetheless.

Not as common as you may think, if statistics can be trusted at all. :(

At 3/9/11 11:09 AM, Makakaov wrote:

At 3/9/11 10:42 AM, EpicFail wrote:

At 3/9/11 10:39 AM, iateamexican wrote: Who would want to watch a video for 57 minutes?

Who would go to a 2 hour movie?

If It's Pulp Fiction, then everyone.

This. Forever and truly.

I know what you're thinking, "Shit, he's making another stupid anti-theist thread'.

No. I save that for when I get high.

Now. I'm not posting a statment that ANYONE needs to accept that there is no afterlife. I'm asking, what if, you found out tomorrow, that there is no afterlife? What would you do?

I personally have devoted the majority of my life to enjoying myself and entertaining others. It's how I wish to spend what little time I have, and it's working for me. :D.

But what about you, NG, what would you do if you found out there was no heaven or hell or reincarnation, or even a ghostly soul of yourself to wander around after death? Would you give up all hope? Be depressed? Be relieved? Decide to go out and do awesome things? Decide to go out and do questionable things? Fuck as many people as you can? Steal as much shit as you can? What would you do?

At 1/30/11 05:04 PM, Scarface wrote: China, Cuba, Russia, and N Korea are the only Communist countries still in the world. Also, N Korea has basically no Army.

China = Follows Maoism
Cuba = Follows Castroism
Russia = Isn't anymore, but for the longest time followed Stalinism
North Korea = OBVIOUS dictatorship.

None of these countries are communist, they are other forms of governmnet under the guise of being communists. Communism doesn't have definite leaders.

Truthfully, we've never actually HAD a communist countries. We've just had countries that claim to be communists that WERE communist-ish.

At 1/30/11 04:29 PM, Earfetish wrote: you stop giving so much of a shit if you cut down on posting online

Not realy. I live in a very religiously dense area. : /

As to those who think I'm referring to all religion, you're not paying attention to what I'm trying to say.

Allow me to word it better.

I give a shit, when people DO INDEED push their beliefs out into the open, into legislation, and on me. I GIVE A SHIT when people actually act based on their faith in a way that directly affects me.

I do NOT give a shit, when people DON'T do that. Don't paint me as some angry atheist who thinks religion should be abolished. I don't think that. I think it's a comforting thing to those who need comfort. Some people feel better thinking there's a nice place they get to go when they die, that's fan-fucking-tastic, and I would never take that away from them.

I CARE when people DO push their religious ideals into the open and onto me. Can I get any clearer on this?

At 1/30/11 03:55 PM, Gagsy wrote: Believing in God doesn't have to mean living on the extreme side of religion you know.

But it is the extreme side of religion that I'm addressing. People think that terrorists are the only people that can be considered extreme. No no no. Take for instance that evolution is a scientific fact. There are TEACHERS who actively don't believe in it, and prefer creationism, and then bring up a generation of children to have the same religious bias against scientific fact.

My mother believes in God, she also smokes, drinks, engages in sexual activity, gambles, uses tvs/phones/computers.

So does mine.

Same as a lot of people these days who believe in a God. Just because you believe in something it doesn't have to mean you must follow everything you're 'supposed' to by their old teaching. Stop imagining that all Christians are like that because it just isn't true.

I'm not imaginging all chirstians are like that. You're missing what I meant in my original post. I'm not saying all religion is a bad thing. Hell didn't you pay attention to my Christopher hitchens quote? Believe what you want, jsut don't go around pushing it on people, or it becomes a problem for me.

I'd be happy for any young family member of mine to be raised to believe in loving thy neighbour and to not steal, cheat or murder. Plus they get the benefit of belief which is such a powerful thing.

Would you also be ok if they believed everyone was descended from Noah after the Great Flood, the world was only 6000 years old and that the bible is more scientific than any textbook? Look I get what you're saying, and I understand that picking some things out of the bible that make sense to base your family's morals on isn't a bad thing, but it can be a slippery slope from, "Love they neighbor" to "God Hates Fags." If it's not done properly.

Who are you to want to deny someone that power just because you think it's so fucking wrong?

Again. I'm not saying anyone can't believe whatever they want to believe. But as soon as they start telling me I need to repent, or I'll burn, literally threatening me with eternal damnation, literally telling OTHER people that the way they act is grounds for damnation, trying to make the governmnet have laws based off of religious doctrines and whatever god might want them to do. THAT is what I have a problem with. THAT is what I give a shit about.

At 1/30/11 03:52 PM, squirrelking69 wrote:

At 1/30/11 03:48 PM, BigLundi wrote: Really? Doesn't happen anymore? People holding up signs that god Hates Fags? Doesn't happen anymore? People saying Science leads to killing people doesn't happen anymore? Preachers going around telling children to ignore scientists and all they teach doesn't happen anymore? Cause I've seen all of that, quite recently.

Okay, doesn't happen as much or with the same severity. Get that stick out of your ass OP.

Oh it happens with great severity. I've seen entire anti-atheistic or anti-evolutionary movies being made.

Let me get something clear. For the most part? I'm a happy guy. I'm a comedian, and an actor. I entertian people, and it makes me giddy as shit when they rect positively to my performances. On the subject of religion though? I feel there's plenty of reason to give a shit. The reasons I mentioned only some of many.

At 1/30/11 03:34 PM, squirrelking69 wrote:
Oh yeah, and this.
Religious people seem happier than athiests in my opinion, and I think it would be kinda cool to be able to blindly follow some religion in hopes that god will make everything okay. I just don't see any logic in it, so I can't bring myself to believe any of it. Sometimes I wish I was raised to be religious though.

Religious people seem happier? Well yeah if you only look at happy religious people. If you ignore all the angry preachers that tell children scientists are evil, if you ignore the terrorists bombing people in rage that they aren't muslim, if you ignore the millions being killed in the name of a god, who I'm guessing aren't happy about the situation. Yeah...I suppose they're happier in that respect.

At 1/30/11 03:31 PM, Gagsy wrote: In fact I'm actually envious because I WANT faith, I just find it damn impossible to find a higher being to believe in. So I'm stuck in this void of self doubt about the world, when I would rather be ignorant and believe, rather have a fake hope then a real scare.

So yeah, there you do.

I can't say I can morally say I'm ok with schools lieing to children, and preachers indoctrinating tchildren to ignore scientific discoveries in the face of god. If everyone didn't mind that we wouldn't have most of the scientific greatness we have now. I don't want to ive in a world where we trade in our ipods, televisions, laptops, cell phones, etc. in exchange for hoping god forgives us.

At 1/30/11 03:30 PM, squirrelking69 wrote: I'm an atheist, and I don't give a damn.
Also, none of that has ever happened to me. Maybe that used to happen, but not so much anymore. And honestly, if they teach my kids about religion as if it were fact, I'll just take them out of catholic school.
Maybe you should take a look out your window, cause it isn't the 1920's anymore.

Really? Doesn't happen anymore? People holding up signs that god Hates Fags? Doesn't happen anymore? People saying Science leads to killing people doesn't happen anymore? Preachers going around telling children to ignore scientists and all they teach doesn't happen anymore? Cause I've seen all of that, quite recently.

At 1/30/11 03:20 PM, Dubbi wrote: Agnosticism or Agnostic atheism is the only tenable position. Still, I just let people believe what they want to believe. If going to church and donating money makes them happy, then so be it.

Ugh...I already went through a whole thread that explained agnosticism is completely different from either theism or atheism already. I have statedI'm perfectly fine with people believing what they want to believe. It's when those beliefs get pushed into public, and then on me, that I have a problem.

At 1/30/11 03:20 PM, Gagsy wrote: I'm an atheist and I don't.

Stop generalizing and realise that everyone is different in their belief or lack of belief.

I've stated it before. there are issues that DO affect you that you might not now, but you will eventualy care about. I know not a single person who is perfectly fine with schools teaching children complete lies and utter bullshit.

At 1/30/11 03:23 PM, Jon wrote: the up in your face ones got sexually abused as children through to their teen years and are fiending attention

Funny, I thought those were just catholics.

At 1/30/11 03:23 PM, Piss wrote:

At 1/30/11 03:15 PM, BigLundi wrote: To quote Richard Dawkins

richard dawkins is an idiot.

Obvious troll is obvious.

At 1/30/11 03:18 PM, GamesArmor wrote: I'm an atheist, I don't give a damn.

How about when people call you ignorant for being an atheist. How about when people say you can't hold a public office? How about when people say you are immoral? How about when people imprison you because you don't believe? How about when people disregard scientific factin support of theistic claims and teach these theistic claims to your children as if they are fact? Don't care even then?

I've been asked the question, "If you're an atheist, why do you care what religions say?"

I found this question to be rather obvious to answer, but I've been asked it so much, I feel the need to make a general response I can simply point people to.

To quote Richard Dawkins : "Religion is the position of being content with not knowing." When people ask me to explain the origins of the universe(in order to defend my atheism) They eventually get to a point where I don't knwo the answer. They then state, "Ha ha. You don't know. God's the answer."

This is commonly referred to as the 'argument from ignorance'. If you don't know something, it should NOT be ok to simply say, "I don't need to know. God did it." If we never delved anywhere past this statement, we'd still believe the earth is the center of the universe, and anyone who's not whatever religion is dominant in the world deserves to die, or be converted.

It becomes a problem when Religion demands money from people. It becomes a problem when Religion demands you to convert, and threats that if you do not, you will burn for eternity. It is a problem when Religion is used as some sort of basis for coming up with answers to legal issues. "What would God want us to do?" Is not a valid answer to a legal debate.

Why do I care about religion? Because it's one of the bigest scams I've ever seen. I have seen perfectly skeptical people who believe the government is full of shit, politicians are full of shit, and even their parents are full of shit. Yet these same skeptics have no problem going to a church, getting on their knees and chatting it up with their invisible friend. Not only that, but these same skeptics decide to put money in an offering tin, despite having no idea what it's going to be used for.

I dream of a time where not a single person is ruled as a bad person because of what they do or do not believe on god. I dream of a time where if you're not hurting someone, there's no reason to condemn you. I dream of a time where people don't make assumptions about you based off of theological beliefs. I dream of a time where religion is seen as something for comfort, but completely unnecessary for life.

To sum up my point, I quote Christopher Hitchens.

"I view Religion as a toy. You can play with your toy at your house all you want. Bring your children up to play with the toy. But do not bring the toy outside and demand everyone else play with your toy. Do not come to my house and tell me my children should play with your toy. It is your toy, keep it to yourself."

At 1/23/11 06:47 PM, TheBlueRaven wrote: ITT: Pedants argue with morons about semantics.

My god...you're right...

...*slits wrists*...

x(

At 1/23/11 04:45 PM, SlashFirestorm wrote: No, you're an asshole because you're an asshole. Note that I didn't say you were outright WRONG---on the contrary, by the definition you've chosen (which, as I noted, is by no means universally accepted as correct, let alone relevant even if correct semantically), your claim IS correct. However, your use of confrontational language and smart-mouthing reinforces the image of non-theists as assholes, particularly when you've by no means "proven your point", as conflicting dictionary definitions have shown.

You make intelligent points, but you're a cock. Just FYI.

Fair enough. I'm not nice to every single person I know. I'm only human, I can only see so much bullshit before I simply decide to start treating people like an asshole would. Meh. As long as you're not saying I'm wrong for being an asshole, I don't care that I'm an asshole. Christopher Hitchens is an asshole, but he's also pretty much right about a lot of what he says. Sometimes...you just gotta be an asshole to get a point through.

A "true" positive atheist---one who claims no gods exist, period---may indeed still say such a thing, which is why it's as weak a concept as stubborn theism and why most self-described hard atheists are more likely negative atheists and just don't grasp the semantic differences.

I've seen these people. However I don't equate hard atheists to all atheists anymore than I equate young earth creationists with all christians.

At 1/23/11 04:47 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 1/23/11 04:15 PM, Lagerkapo wrote: Although I know that, sadly, it is necessary at some junctures to make this distinction for people, it's sad that people don't seem to understand that:

Atheism: The lack of a belief in god.

Period.

A- a prefix meaning without.
Theism- belief in god or a higher power.

Then how the hell do so many people get the most basic fundamental definition of a label totally wrong?

Several reasons.
1. The intent to discredit atheism as another blindly followed creed without evidence.
2. the intent to pain atheists as another religion
3. The intent to make atheists look like they don't know what they're talking about.
It's very simple, but people don't like simple.

At 1/23/11 04:37 PM, Dubbi wrote:

1. That's not agnosticism, at least not the definition I use.

Agnosticism is neither believing nor disbelieving in God.

No it's not.

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable

That's straight from the dude who first thought of it. It's not a creed. In fact, it doesn't even reference God anywhere in that definition.

2. Once again, if you believe a deity exists, you're a theist. If you don't have that belief, you're an atheist. It's that simple, stop treating atheism as if it is a belief.

If you believe neither, you're an agnostic. It's that simple.

do you believe that a deity exists? If your answer isn't yes, you're atheist. It's THAT simple.

At 1/23/11 04:25 PM, Dubbi wrote:

At 1/23/11 04:23 PM, chiefindomer wrote:

At 1/23/11 04:20 PM, Dubbi wrote: How is neither believing nor disbelieving in something wrong?

Not wrong, impossible. To claim that it is possible is wrong.

If I never tasted cake, I can't have an opinion it.

We're not asking you for your opinion on cake. We're asking if you've tasted it.

If I've never seen evidence either verifying or contradicting the existence of God, then naturally I can't have a real opinion on it's existence - agnosticism.

Ok. How about this? You're an agnostic atheist if you say you don't see the evidence for god's existence, so you can't believe in him. That's a fact.

At 1/23/11 04:17 PM, Strategize wrote:

At 1/23/11 02:40 PM, BigLundi wrote: Oh, yes. Deciding proof is necessary to believe is ignorance.

I'll stop you here. What you just described is agnosticism. Atheism is the polar opposite of theism and yet it is exactly the same concept of "no your wrong, no matter what". Theists refuse to give an inch even when faced with all the proof we have today.

HEY GUYS IM AN ANGSTY TEENAGER AND EVERYONE IS WRONG, IM COOL RIGHT GUYS?

*yawns*

So you're saying if an atheist were to be shown tangible evidence of god's existence, they'd still say god doesn't exist. you state that agnosticism is the only way of thinking that would be open to god existing. God you're an imbecile.

I'll leave you with a statement from a popular and extremely intelligent atheist. Stephen Hawking.

"We have no proof that god doesn't exist. However, we have discovered enough about the universe to confidently say that god is unnecessary."

At 1/23/11 04:11 PM, SlashFirestorm wrote: And I'm going to ignore most of what you said because you proved you're an arrogant twat who apparently feels that it's more important to be seen as correct than to be correct in realistic, practical context, only choosing interpretations that fit your views (which is little different from the worst of theism). Even on issues where you are correct---such as that, by the broadest definition of atheism, your claim is correct---your use of insistent THIS IS WHY I AM RIGHT babbling is why so many people see non-theists as identical, arrogant, assholish people. Thanks for contributing to the image, dick.

"Wah, you're more concerned with being seen as right than being right."

I don't need to argue with you, nor convince you I am right. You've already proven my point. I've also already made many posts explaining my open mindedness, been told how non trollish my original post was, and have had inteligent conversation with others during the course of this thread. But no, I'm an asshole because I refuse to argue with someone who contradicts himself so blatantly he cannot even be bothered to look up proper definitions and arguments. Simply, I don't care if one asshole thinks I'm an asshole. :D

At 1/23/11 03:46 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote:

At 1/23/11 03:26 PM, BigLundi wrote: It is. I personally do not believe agnosticism is regarded as a third option when asked if you are an atheist or a theist. You are one or the other, saying you're agnostic is not a valid answer to the question 'do you believe in god?'

That's because the question, "Do you believe in God?" is not as simple as yes or no. Sure, if you watered down everyone's beliefs to their simplest forms, you could probably group them as such, but there is no point in doing so and in fact, doing so only stems intellectual conversation.

I have no problem wit hanyone who doesn't like to be 'categorized'. I do have a problem with anyone who says, "Well I'm reasonable, and you're not." When they believe the exact same thing I do.

If someone is asked if they believe in the existence of deities, and the answer is not yes, they are atheists. I don' care if the asnwer is, "No or maybe." either one falls under the category of atheism.

Again, depends on your definition. As I stated in my last post, atheism can be defined strictly as the belief that there is no deity. If that is the case, then one cannot hold that belief and be agnostic at the same time.

It's not my definition. I am going by the definition of the person who coined the term agnosticism. I'm going by the definition of the dictionaries you guys have been so kind as to provide, I.E. The Disbelief in the existence of god or deities. The definition you just gave is an ipinion on what atheism is, but it's not what atheism is.

I'm not ignoring it. Since the argument for why agnostics aren't atheists is the same essentially for why they're not theists, I see no reason to state it twice.

Ugh. so you admit that there are agnostic atherists, but then you type earlier that one cannot hold to being an atheist and be agnostic at the same time. Do you understand how silly you sound?

The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence

See my last post.

My problem with your last post? You say in your last post that Ishould CONSIDER the narrow view of what atheism is. But in all other posts concerning this subject on your side, this narrow view seems to be the ONLY one presented. Even when an earlier poster said, "In the broadest view." he used this 'narrow view' you cited. I can consider this narrow view, but it's only one view of atheists. Atheists come in all sort of levels, from active refutal of god to a simple shrug and indifference towards him. All of that is atheism.

Being condescending only weakens your argument. In debate, it's not a good idea and will only work to damage your credibility. It only works when your opponent is easily angered by opposition, which is not the case for me and for others. Just saying.

I'm being condescending because I have tried being intelligent. It has not been working, so I'm not going to try anymore.

Anyways, the reason why I haven't accepted your argument is that you haven't stated why religion is a yes or no question. Why can't it be more complicated than yes or no? From whose definition are you pulling this from?

The dictionaries you guys have presented, and the prson who originally coined the term agnosticism. That's where I'm getting these definitions. As to why religion can't just be a yes or no question, it's because it IS that simple. you ask why it can't be more complicated, I ask why it has to be MORE complicated. If you don't believe in god you don't believe in god. Not knowing is not believing isn't it? I'm not saying that not knowing is the equivalent of saying, "There is no god." I'm saying not knowing is the equivalent of disagreeing with the idea that there IS a god, which is exactly what atheism is.

At 1/23/11 02:41 PM, Scarab wrote: Again I'm not an expert or anything on this, so it's not really an argument either way. I think there's some basic psychoanalysis and sociology in there or something. My miniature starting block is just seeing postmodernism as a means of, whether legitimately or deceptively, fragmenting every little thing we see and know.

I appreciate your input. The argument being addressed is the argument for and against the idea that agnosticism is mutualy exclusive with atheism and theism, when in fact it is not. That's MY problem anyhow.

At 1/23/11 02:53 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: This is contradictory. If agnosticism is a completely different school of thought, then it should be considered as such.

It is. I personally do not believe agnosticism is regarded as a third option when asked if you are an atheist or a theist. You are one or the other, saying you're agnostic is not a valid answer to the question 'do you believe in god?'

If i asked you, "Do you believe in god." and you responded with ,"God is unknowable." that is not an answer to the question. I would continue with, "...so does that mean you don't believe? And you would counter with, "God is unknowable." And I would scratch my head and ask, "So yes...no...maybe?" and you'd say, "Maybe." and I'd say, "So then that's not a yes, right?" And you'd say, "No. It's not a no either." and I'd say, "But if it's not a yes, then in this case it constitutes lack of belief, which is atheism." Do you get it?

Agnosticism is a belief. Atheism is a different belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no god while agnosticism is the belief that there may be a god or there may not. There are fundamental differences between the two that can't be ignored. Not only is oversimplifying the issue pointless without any benefits, but it's also lumping two groups of people with fundamentally different beliefs into one category.

Agnosticism and atheism are part of two compeltely seperate schools of thought, and have nothing to do with one another. someone can be an agnostic, and at the same time be an atheist, or they can also at the same time be a theist. If you can be both, then agnosticism is not a 'third option' as opposed to theism and atheism.

Agnosticism is also the belief that we can't know. It is ultimate neutrality. Sure, atheists are open to new information, but for the time being, they hold strong to the belief that there is no god. This is something that isn't present in agnostics who have decided to hold no opinion on the matter because of the fact that it is impossible to decide.

*sigh* SOME atheists believe strongly in no god. Some disregard god entirely, some simply refuse to acknowledge the subject of god. it's all atheism you twat.

They are no more atheists than they are theists. While you say that agnostics are atheists because they don't necessarily believe in a god, I could say with equal legitimacy that they are theists because they don't necessarily disbelieve in a god. After all, technically, they are holding a belief in a potential god just as much as they harbor doubts. The problem is that it's impossible to discern which they are and it's impossible to be an atheist and a theist at the same time by the nature of the two definitions. So, we're forced to place them into a third category.

There is no third category. You're making up a category that isn't there. Stop doing that. I'm not saying agnostics are atheists. I'm saying they are EITHER atheists or theists. I linked earlier the definition of atheistic agnostics. Go ahead and ignore that if it makes you feel better, here's the definition of theistic agnostics:
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence
If agnostic atheists and theistic agnostics exist, I fail to see your point that agnosticism is a seperate option entirely from both of them. It's like saying, "I'm neither a vegan nor a cannibal, I read books." It's nonsensical. In this instance someone CAN read books , in yet still be a vegan or a cannibal, the fact that they read books is irrelevant to the original idea. That's the same thing as someone who says, "I'm neither an atheist or a theist, I'm agnostic."

This is a ridiculous and oversimplifying analogy. Religious belief is far more complicated than whether or not you are eating cake or whether or not you are doing something like eating cake. This is an issue that can't be argued with vaguely related analogies because to do so is utterly juvenile. If your argument is based in silly imagery instead of factual analysis, then you have no argument at all. The fact that religious belief is a spectrum and not a black and white set of options completely nullifies any legitimacy that this analogy has.

*rolls eyes* Look. Religion in the idea of atheism and theism IS quite as simple as eating or not eating cake. It is believing or not believing in god. There are those two. CAN YOU EXPLAIN to me how neutrality is an active answer to that question? It is not. We have tried factual analysis, using definitions, using context, explaining the origins of agnosticism being a completely different teain of thought. All of these have been ignored. so yes, we are going to resort to simple imagery, because we thought HOPEFULLY that might reach you guys. Obviously it hasn't.

At 1/23/11 03:01 PM, SlashFirestorm wrote:

I'm going ot ignore pretty much the entirety of your post because you proved your ignorance and beat your own argument with these statements.

By broad definitions:

A theist believes in the existence of a god.

:An atheist does not believe in god.(edited definition because this is the right one)

:I do not believe in the existence of any god, so I am certainly not a theist.

An atheist is someone who has no belief in gods. you said yourself, "I do not believe in the existence of any god." You're a fucking atheist. We hold nonbelief. We don't actively not believe, we just DONT believe. We don't say, "NO GOD! BRIGABARGH!" Richard Dawkins is the most adamant atheist i know besides maybe Christopher hitchins and even he says, "There is a miniscule possibility that god exists." But guess what? He's still an atheist.

At 1/23/11 02:25 PM, Strategize wrote: Atheism is the epitomy of ignorance.

Oh, yes. Deciding proof is necessary to believe is ignorance.

Taken from wikipedia: "Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims-is unknown or unknowable."

I agree. That is exactly what agnosticism is.

Agnosticism and Atheism are two different things.

You're right, they are two different things. Mind scrolling down your wikipedia page a bit and look under the 'types of agnosticism' section? What's there, can you tell me?
I'll go ahead and copy paste it here for you.

Agnostic Atheism - Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist

You wanker.

At 1/23/11 02:25 PM, WallofYawn wrote: Actually, the main misconception about atheism is not that we must believe in anything. The false assumption is that atheists don't believe in anything. At all. Period. Which is completely untrue.

There are more misconceptions. I've been told that because I hold no belief in god, it means I also believe there is no point to life, or that there is no afterlife. These are stupid assumptions made more often than you might think.

You're cramping my style with all these labels and shit man. Agnosticism is fence straddling. It's like the bi-sexuality of religious/philosophy. TBH, agnosticism can be either OR neither, it doesn't matter. I reject your labels of, theistic/atheistic agnosticism. Agnosticism is agnosticism, plain and simply so. There's no need to get more technical than that. If you don't know, than you don't know. It's as simple as that.

I apologize for 'cramping your style'. But explaining what agnosticism is is not putting unnecessary labels onto it. It cannot be neither. There IS a need to get more technical, as there are those who will say, "Well, you atheists are unreasonable, I'm agnostic, it makes me reasonable." To state that agnosticism is more reasonable is absurd, because, as has been stated before, it is
A. A completely diferent school of thought entierely, and
B. You can either believe in god, or not believe in god, there is no middle ground in this particular instance. you cannot make up a fence that is not there.

You don't see me running around saying, "im an atheistic buddhist who, since he can't disprove faith, admits there might be a 1% chance that there is a god, just to account for the fact he can't disprove faith." No. I just call myself an atheist, because in general, I have no belief in god, and reject the notion of a higher power.

That's fine, and is one way that atheists go. It also isn't rthe only way atheists go. Richard Dawkins himself rated himself on a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being 100% belief in god's existence, and 7 being 100% belief that god does not exist, as a 6, being able to live his life with the assumption of no god. Atheism can go to many different lengths.

I firmly believe that if you don't have at least some acceptance of the concepts of evolution, you are retarded.

As do i, the proof is substantial.

2. Atheism is a religion
No. Atheism is a religion in the same idea that not collecting stamps is a hobby, or that not smoking is a habit.

In the same idea/sense? Nope. Not even. Atheism = non-theism, or lack of a belief in god. It is an opinion, not a religion. If someone wants to tack on certain religious practices, they're still an atheist, regardless. Example: Laveyan Satanists, buddhist atheists, christian atheists.(sounds like an oxymoron, but it's true)

...Satanists? I know bhuddists are atheists but satanists? To admit the existence of any sort of deity, evil or otherwise, is not atheism.

3. Atheists must prove atheism is correct
No. Atheism is the default belief of nonbelief. Atheists are actually the ONLY ones that DO NOT have to prove what they...don't believe.

It should be noted that the reasons for being an atheist vary, but most are not based on a "belief" in non-belief. It's not like we(at least the smart ones), just decided there is no god. Most atheists come to that conclusion based on evidence, and the fact that a god, or higher power is not necessary for life/the universe to exist. To take up any idea/belief/lack of belief without first questioning it, is an act of blind faith, and serves no purpose to the individual.

Agreed.

4. Atheists hate god.
No. We don't believe in god. We cannot hate something we don't believe exist.

Actually, a great many do. Myself NOT being one of them. They criticise the way god treats his people(especially in the old testament), and for many that's their reason for quitting religion in the first place. Many pose an active campaign against religion, and view religious people as retarded.

The fact that some atheists hate god doesn't make it an atheist value. It's as if I were to say christians hate homosexuals.

They are arrogant and close minded assholes. I, on the other hand, don't really care what others believe. I reached my viewpoints objectively, through my own experience, and not because I hate religion, and not because I had a bad experience with religion.

Neither do I. If one wishes to believe god did things, then fine. As long as there is no inarguable proof to the contrary, I see no problem with that.

5. Atheists have no morality.
No. We have subjective morality. And as much as religion would like to say otherwise, nobody, not even 'god' has carte blanche to claim morality as something they invented. To say we have no god to fear, so we have no reason to go ape shit and rape babies is absurdity in the highest degree.

It's because anyone who isn't part of the norm, is viewed as a heathen. I just look at them, laugh, and acknowledge them for what they are: ignorant motherfuckers. They also claim that god is love, and you cannot have love without god. I would explain to them that love is a chemical process, but why bother? It should also be noted that this isn't every christian. Some people are better off believing in god. It's the zealot nutbags and the church that are the real problem with the world today.

Also agreed.

If anyone would like to dispute this, or would like to add more things you've seen that should be addressed, please do so.

Done.

I do so enjoy intelectual discussion.

At 1/23/11 02:01 PM, RobJohnson wrote:

At 1/23/11 01:59 PM, chiefindomer wrote:

Then that would mean that you switch between theism and atheism a lot.

...Or that I'm undecided.

You're failing to grasp the point. If you're undecided that's fine, but that doesn't mean you are neither atheist or theist, it just means you're undecided. Agnosticism is a completely different school of thought than atheism and theism.

If you're undecided I could only conclude that that means you don't have belief in a deity, which makes you an atheist. Doesn't matter if you don't like the term or you are ignorant of what it actually means.

That is the way you see it, but it is not the way I see it.

No, it is the way it is. How you chose to see it is irrelevant. If you don't have a belief, that is atheism. Pure and simple.

It's a ridiculous concept.

how is being undecided on any matter a ridiculous concept?

Being undecided isn't the rediculous part. Saying being undecided is a conclusion is. richard Dawkins himself stated that permanant agnosticism is intellectual cowardice, while temporary agnosticism is perfectly reasonable. What you're displaying is the idea of being a Permanant Agnostic in Principal, which is a rediculous thinking style.

At 1/23/11 02:04 PM, SlashFirestorm wrote:

At 1/23/11 01:51 PM, chiefindomer wrote: It indeed is that simple. Look at it this way, if eating cake is theism and not eating cake is atheism, where is the middle ground between the two? You can't be eating cake while also not eating cake and you can't not eat cake while also not not eating cake, it's a paradox. There is no middle ground.

False dichotomy

It is not a false dichotomy because there is, quite literally, no other options. If you're eating cake you're eating cake, if you're not eating cake you're not eating cake. There's more things that can be DONE wit hthe cake...you could wear the cake as a hat...you could mash the cake in someone else's face...but the idea is not a false dichotomy, least of all according to the definition you link.