You know what they call an Agnostic?

An Atheist with no balls.

At 9/18/12 07:02 PM, Shade wrote: I'm just curious, is it religion that you hate, or is it just Christianity? You do realize there is a difference don't you?

didn't even mention a specific deity at any point yet i am glad you have decided my stance for me. i don't hate religion, i think it is destructive yet silly. i hate twats though. twat.

At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote: So wouldn't it be more scientifically correct to not invest belief in God, but to also remain open minded to the possibility (however unlikely) that God exists until evidence proving otherwise is uncovered?

It all depends on your definition of scientifically correct. Many will say that the burden of proof lies on the one making the suggestions that there is a all powerful being, and not the ones suggesting that there isn't being that there is a lack of evidence supporting the person making the claim. However, I know that science and technology is no where near advanced enough to disprove the existence of God in the entirety of the universe.

At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote: Tell me your beliefs and opinions, Newgrounds.

I would consider myself to be an Agnostic-Theist. I don't know for a fact the there is a higher power, but I believe that if there wasn't for something causing an imbalance in the original atomic singularity, there would never be a universe to exist. So I don't believe in God as a being in some imaginary land that sends you to hell if you don't praise him, but more as universal creator, something that keeps everything going, the reason why everything is the way it is.

The problem with what you're saying is that the exact same reasoning can be used to justify being "open minded to the possibility" of magic, vampires, jackalopes, unicorns, Bigfoot, Santa Claus, and Count Chocula. There is no way to be absolutely 100% certain of anything about our universe (most atheists would probably concede this point; even Dawkins himself has said as much).

But it's all just a matter of semantics and linguistic convenience, really. If we are sure enough that the things listed above don't exist, and if we always go about our day as if they don't exist, then that little concession of possibility becomes so negligible that your answer to whether or not you think these things exist can conveniently be a simple "no" and still be accurate. And in fact, if someone asked you if you believed in unicorns, I'm sure that's what you'd say as opposed to "well,

The Abrahamic conception of a sentient, omnipotent, personal God (at least as I and other atheists see it) is really no less fantastical a thought than any of the other things I listed, and there is no greater amount of evidence for its existence. You've basically admitted as much yourself by saying that the only reason you're agnostic is because you can't have 100% certainty that God doesn't exist.

So why are you affording this privileged position of open-mindedness to God that you don't to all the other things?

Stephen Colbert once said that agnostics are "atheists without balls," and while it's obviously just a joke and not an accurate representation of agnostic beliefs, I still can't help but feel that there's a little truth to it. The "rational" and "scientific" reasons people come up with for being agnostic seem to me to fail at being either, leaving only emotional and social reasons as the real cause for their beliefs.

I basically considered myself agnostic for a long time, and it's only been fairly recently that I've definitively made the jump to atheism...sort of (I don't really like to attach myself to "-isms" at all if I can help it; hell, my thoughts on the universe and religion could probably be conflated with pantheism easily enough, but I don't really see myself as that either, so whatever). But when I think back on it, I never really considered the possibility of God at all that whole time, I was just pretending I did for silly, irrational reasons that I've gotten over, and I think I'm much better off for it.

At 9/18/12 07:52 PM, MrPercie wrote: MrPercie takes something which is obviously non-literal literally because he is a moron

awww sorry :(

As if athiests can do no wrong in this world, even though I probably encountered more asshole athiests than thiests in my days.

hey guess what i never said this though. i actually made zero comments about the kind of people atheists or theists are and i would never make such an assumption because an individual's personal beliefs have almost nothing to do with the kind of person they are. you are assigning me a stance i never even attempted to make.

And refering to people you disagree with a disorder about stupidity? yeah reall smooth, you fucking cunt.

except i don't disagree with him because he has stated an opinion for me to disagree with. he just made a comment about my initial post that led me to believe he severely misunderstood its basis.

giantdouche - 1
down syndrome chumps - 0

At 9/18/12 07:52 PM, MrPercie wrote:

At 9/18/12 06:22 PM, GiantDouche wrote:

At 9/18/12 06:08 PM, Shade wrote: shade asserts his mental retardation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation

please read that above wiki page, its about mental retardation, I dont know if you understand it.

Of course he understands it. It's quite retarded of you to take his choice of words so seriously.

As if athiests can do no wrong in this world even though I probably encountered more asshole athiests than thiests in my days.

It was never implied that atheists can do no wrong in the world.

And refering to people you disagree with a disorder about stupidity? yeah reall smooth, you fucking cunt.

If you're gonna get on his ass over something that insignificant, I might as well point out how nonsensical it is to insult him by stating that he is a vagina.

At 9/18/12 07:48 PM, Shade wrote:

i don't hate religion, i think it is destructive yet silly.

Elaborate please.

over the course of human history, religion has played a vast role in politics, wars, and essentially every other aspect of civilization. it is destructive because it has historically fueled wars and violence and continues to do so. it is absurd because it is a ridiculously abstract concept which presumes a concrete understanding of our place in the universe and the meaning of life. the reality of it is we understand nothing of our nature outside of what science has empirically confirmed. so some people are actually driven to kill over a false (or at the very least, unaffirmable) pretense. people actually act out of violence because they place that much faith into their holy books, all of which were written by men. i find that silly. human nature in general is full of absurdities like that.

At 9/18/12 06:05 PM, Sekhem wrote: hitler was a positive christian who believed in an 'aryan christ' (though he disagreed with some of the more extreme views in germany)

I also recall seeing a picture of him with the Pope of the time. the wrong side of history...Try not to be on it.

At 9/18/12 06:09 PM, Xenomit wrote: The prefix "a" meaning "absence of", the suffix "theist" meaning someone who considers their religious beliefs. I'm an atheist who acknowledges that it's possible for a god to exist, however I spend absolutely zero brainpower on thinking about it.

At 9/18/12 06:14 PM, Winrar1337 wrote: Atheism is best defined as the absence of belief in god(s). It contains the prefix "a," meaning "not" or "without," attached to "theism," meaning "belief in god(s)." The word itself does not imply stubbornness, no matter how much atheists tend to be stubborn (or how much you may think they do,) and it definitely does not imply certainty. While gnostic atheists think god is impossible, atheists in general do not necessarily think the same.

Thanks to the both of you.

Also, I find it annoying when people insist that atheism requires just as much faith as religion, or worse yet, is a religion.

At 9/18/12 06:15 PM, wreckr wrote: Also, to add some more to this conversation, how does everyone feel about Pascal's Wager?

It's fucking stupid. Even if you give into that, you're not increasing your odds much. You could still end up worshiping the wrong god and end up in the hell of the correct god. Plus, even if you somehow luck out, wouldn't the god you chose know that you were being insincere and were only worshiping out of fear of damnation?

I think there is a god, but not one like the Judeo-Christian God. More like something beyond our comprehension that has no concern in humanly affairs. Also I think there could be many others.
I grew up in a religiously diverse area. I was learning about Egyptian and Roman gods in elementary school. I think all religions are interesting.
I don't care what religion you are. As long as your religion doesn't define who you are. You're Jehovah's witness? Cool. You're atheist? Fine by me. Cult of Cthulu? Okeydokey That doesn't mean you need to spend all your free time bashing religions other than your own.

To each their own I say. Just don't be a dick about it.

Atheism is just an extreme belief, must of how fundementalist religious people are who take their religion and readings literally. They never shut up about being right and are both quick to judge others. Following a religion or claiming not to know (Being Agnostic) are really the only middle ground one can be part of.

At 9/18/12 09:02 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Atheism is just an extreme belief

It's a lack of belief, and not everyone is extreme about it.

At 9/18/12 09:02 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Atheism is just an extreme belief, must of how fundementalist religious people are who take their religion and readings literally. They never shut up about being right and are both quick to judge others. Following a religion or claiming not to know (Being Agnostic) are really the only middle ground one can be part of.

That's completely false.

I consider myself an atheist and I don't go around bragging that I don't believe in god. Also, I don't judge people if they do. Also, it's funny because you are judging people...

At 9/18/12 09:02 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Atheism is just an extreme belief, must of how fundementalist religious people are who take their religion and readings literally.

Holy shit, my sides are hurting.

At 9/18/12 09:13 PM, Tateos wrote: I love how we're the only people who provided reasonable well thought-out rebuttals to the OP's post, and yet we were ignored completely (thus far)...

This. Oh, this I hate.

Why do you feel the need to justify your beliefs to others? No matter how well thought out your reasons are, you won't change anyone's opinion on them. It's just a waste of time and turns decent discussions into pointless flamewars.

At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote: Please note that this is not a "You're wrong" topic, but more of a "Why" topic.

As some of you know, I am agnostic, and this is because although I don't really believe anything, I like to remain open minded to any theory, even ones that seem unlikely. Atheists deny the existence of God because there is no scientific proof. This is true, there is no proof of God's existence. However, if they truly wish to act and think with logic, then how can they discount the theory of God entirely? There is no proof that God does not exist. So wouldn't it be more scientifically correct to not invest belief in God, but to also remain open minded to the possibility (however unlikely) that God exists until evidence proving otherwise is uncovered?

I don't know, just wondering. Tell me your beliefs and opinions, Newgrounds.

Tell me about it... At least you don't get criticized for it as often as i do. Everything is based on religion nowadays. It's almost as bad as gang fueds. I completely understand and feel for you bro.

At 9/18/12 09:13 PM, Tateos wrote: I love how we're the only people who provided reasonable, well thought-out rebuttals to the OP's post, and yet we were ignored completely (thus far).

Yeah, that's how it tends to go around here unfortunately. People don't like to read. For what it's worth, I liked your post a lot (I'm going to have to use that "religion is a hypothesis without data" thing sometime in the future) and I originally intended on replying to it at the end of my post with something along the lines of "Also, this. Good stuff."

With most debates, it seems like people would rather just try and make the other person look wrong or stupid to everyone watching, rather than further the cause, or make any progress. If you think that (most) of the kind of arguments posted in this thread could actually further a cause or change the way someone thinks about something, you're delusional.

To be fair, some people have been making some pretty good points (mainly the various "Pascal's Wager is bullshit" folks and the people stressing that atheism is not a belief system, but a lack of belief), but for the most part they're just flatly stating them without elaborating or specifically responding to the things the OP is saying.

At 9/18/12 09:16 PM, wreckr wrote:

At 9/18/12 09:02 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Atheism is just an extreme belief, must of how fundementalist religious people are who take their religion and readings literally. They never shut up about being right and are both quick to judge others. Following a religion or claiming not to know (Being Agnostic) are really the only middle ground one can be part of.

That's completely false.

I consider myself an atheist and I don't go around bragging that I don't believe in god. Also, I don't judge people if they do. Also, it's funny because you are judging people...

Except it isn't. That's my point and users are proving it with their responses. Atheism isn't a belief. It's is the idea that you already know. There is nothing more egocentric then claiming you know anything considering it's impossible for you to claim an absolute about anything in life.

And since you can't claim that you know an absolute because it is illogical, it is nothing more than a mere BELIEF. Atheism is a belief. Not an absolute. It's really quite the simple but given the responses to my post, there are an awful lot of people who don't understand the concept of Atheism why it's illogical to assume you know anything.

At 9/18/12 09:13 PM, Tateos wrote: I love how we're the only people who provided reasonable, well thought-out rebuttals to the OP's post, and yet we were ignored completely (thus far).

Just because I haven't responded to anyone doesn't mean I'm ignoring them, it just means I have nothing really to say. I'm not trying to argue or agree with anyone really, just gain insight on what other people think of what I discussed in the OP.

Yeah, I don't feel like writing an essay on my beliefs or lack thereof. So I do agree that most of my points are rather sparse, i.e. not there at all.

At 9/18/12 09:35 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Except it isn't. That's my point and users are proving it with their responses. Atheism isn't a belief. It's is the idea that you already know. There is nothing more egocentric then claiming you know anything considering it's impossible for you to claim an absolute about anything in life.

And since you can't claim that you know an absolute because it is illogical, it is nothing more than a mere BELIEF. Atheism is a belief. Not an absolute. It's really quite the simple but given the responses to my post, there are an awful lot of people who don't understand the concept of Atheism why it's illogical to assume you know anything.

You don't seem to get it. Not all atheists are gnostic. I'm not. They don't all claim to know for a fact that there is no god. I don't. And again, it isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief. That's all it is. Beyond that, the specifics vary from atheist to atheist.

At 9/18/12 09:56 PM, Shade wrote: This thread is still fucking going?

Yes. And Samurai Jack was an awesome show. I wish they would bring it back somehow.

I have come to peace that life is probably a coincidence and everything is meaningless.
Meaning is something that humans created after all.
But note that I said probably, having a God would totally be awesome.

At 9/18/12 05:58 PM, GiantDouche wrote: the burden of evidence is placed upon the individual who makes the assertion. it wouldn't make sense for me to tell you to disprove that santa's ghost is currently rubbing his testicles on your forehead because no matter how you argue it i could just say that you can't fully disprove it. does this mean that a scientific minded person should be open to the idea of any ridiculous, irrefutable hypothesis? science does not lend itself to the supernatural because it is grounded in observable fact. what you're proposing has nothing to do with being scientifically correct but just being an irrational shit who blindly accepts the possibility of anything. to say it's unlikely that there's no god is ridiculous because that implies some degree of measure or statistics when we are talking about an entirely intangible concept fabricated by idiots thousands of years ago before we had science to explain the natural world.

also this thread adds absolutely nothing to newgrounds' rich theological knowledge as you've simply regurgitated a logical fallacy made by many, many people.

I can somewhat agree with this
but let people discuss what they want.
Religion isn't much more than remaining ignorance from the old ages.
You seem like you are trying to shove your opinion down our throats, however. Whether or not you were doing that, it still kindof seemed like it.
But let live I say, I'll keep open minded.

At 9/18/12 09:51 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

At 9/18/12 09:35 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Except it isn't. That's my point and users are proving it with their responses. Atheism isn't a belief. It's is the idea that you already know. There is nothing more egocentric then claiming you know anything considering it's impossible for you to claim an absolute about anything in life.

And since you can't claim that you know an absolute because it is illogical, it is nothing more than a mere BELIEF. Atheism is a belief. Not an absolute. It's really quite the simple but given the responses to my post, there are an awful lot of people who don't understand the concept of Atheism why it's illogical to assume you know anything.

You don't seem to get it. Not all atheists are gnostic. I'm not. They don't all claim to know for a fact that there is no god. I don't. And again, it isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief. That's all it is. Beyond that, the specifics vary from atheist to atheist.

To reject a God would be to "know for a fact" that God doesn't exist. Lack of belief and not claiming to know for a fact is a contridiction. Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief. Atheism is the lack of a belief (at least in the common definition). People should stop referring to themselves as Atheists if they have doubts or believe in something that is called something else.

Religion is about drawing wild conclusions, then looking for supporting evidence afterwards. Science is about drawing conclusions from the evidence we already have. So no, it wouldn't be more scientific as nothing points to the existence of a divine creator.

At 9/18/12 10:16 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: To reject a God would be to "know for a fact" that God doesn't exist. Lack of belief and not claiming to know for a fact is a contridiction. Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief. Atheism is the lack of a belief (at least in the common definition). People should stop referring to themselves as Atheists if they have doubts or believe in something that is called something else.

You are implying that belief and knowledge are the same thing. They are not.

"Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief." Nope. That's simply acknowledging one's own lack of knowledge. It deals with knowledge, not belief.

You further confuse definitions in saying that people should not be called atheists if they have doubts, but atheism itself is little more than doubt. You yourself defined it as "the lack of belief," which is pretty much the same as doubt. I assume you probably meant that atheists who aren't gnostic 'doubt their lack of belief,' which is just plain silly.

Atheists who say that there is no God, is a personal belief. They, nor can scientists say that there is no God, because as you put it that don't have the evidence either way. Nothing is impossible, just very unlikely.

Your immaturity is astounding, between the countless agnostic and BI threads and PMs you think you would come to a conclusion, but you can,t because you suck, just be a pagan gay, you obviously cannot decide, we cn do it together and post on NG, oh yes.

At 9/18/12 05:50 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote: I am agnostic, and this is because although I don't really believe anything, I like to remain open minded to any theory

You're an open minded atheist

You are a shame representative of all atheist.

Atheism; A fad that's popular among the socially inept teenagers and college students.
Apparently, it's the cool thing to be now-a-days. Let's just "pray" this fad dies soon, I can't tolerate those types of annoying douche bags any longer. They're almost as bad as uppity, proud bronies... Almost.