Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/30/13 05:35 PM, abbiegale wrote: I DIDN'T SAY THAT THEY WOULD STILL THINK THERE IS NO GOD.

If the average Christian found out that their soul would be put in Hell and they would be tortured for all eternity unless they became Muslim, they would likely do all they possibly could to avoid eternal hellfire. I really don't know why you would say atheists would not respond to their beliefs being proved incorrect in anything less than a sensible way. It looks like I have pissed you off, which was not my intention, and for that I apologise.

So Thor makes thunder, or the Sun is actually a God called Ra - would an agnostic exclude the possibility that these concepts are correct?

Is that what I said? ... if you keep putting words in my mouth I won't respond to you anymore

I was not trying to put words in your mouth - you said that agnostics do not exclude the possibility of religion being correct, and I was asking you to further explain what you meant about this, using examples. From my experience, many agnostics actually do exclude the possibility of any religion being correct and would use the exact same arguments against a Christian as an atheist would.

Probably those who became atheists out of spite.

Could you also explain what you mean by this?

Poxpower:

That's just the same as being a skeptic really, why do we need a word JUST for gods?

I agree with that in general, but I know from experience that people define God(s) in a completely different way. How would you define 'God'? I would say what I'm really 'atheist' about is the concept of a cosmic dictator who gives a shit about you, and I don't even see the point in arguing against the concept of a 'living being that triggered some aspect of space and time'. Many people say, "You don't believe in God? What started the universe then?" As if the definition of God is 'the thing that started the universe'. Not 'the thing that answers prayers'.

As far as you saying earlier:

These damn atheist minus ultra-PC people who think they're being clever because they figured out philosophy 101 concepts like the Matrix or a Dream world. OH WHAT IS REALITY? WHO CAN KNOW? PERHAPS NOTHING IS TRUE, THEREFORE I AM AN AGNOSTIC.

I actually think this is a relevant discussion to have when we're talking about the concept of 'belief', especially in terms of our existence. At what point do we stop being 'agnostic' about 'philosophy 101' concepts? Many agnostics do proclaim 'nobody can truly know' whether or not there is a God, so they remain agnostic. I'm just pointing out that nobody can truly know if this is really reality, so the same argument remains.

At 1/31/13 06:14 AM, Earfetish wrote: I agree with that in general, but I know from experience that people define God(s) in a completely different way. How would you define 'God'? I would say what I'm really 'atheist' about is the concept of a cosmic dictator who gives a shit about you, and I don't even see the point in arguing against the concept of a 'living being that triggered some aspect of space and time'. Many people say, "You don't believe in God? What started the universe then?" As if the definition of God is 'the thing that started the universe'. Not 'the thing that answers prayers'.

That's actually a darn good point.

I always liked the theory that the term 'God' often derives from mankind's limitations of knowledge, so back when we were largely ignorant about complex natural events or diseases, volcanoes, tides, etc. we just used the word God to fill in the gaps of what we couldn't explain. And now our knowledge of the world is so advanced God has been pushed back to the very recesses of what we still don't know yet, like the 'God particle' and mind fucking deep space shit.

At 1/31/13 06:14 AM, Earfetish wrote:

I agree with that in general, but I know from experience that people define God(s) in a completely different way.

That's their problem really.
I'm no longer in the business of convincing idiot fence-sitters who side with Christians instead of atheists because although they don't believe in any form of deism or theism, they talk about shit like "life energies" or whatever all the while calling themselves Christians for the social / political benefits.

Those people aren't interested in truth, I don't think we should dumb down everything for them.

The enemies of reason aren't them anyway, they're the theists and their god damned insanity. No one's trying to past Deist legislation, they're just sadly too stupid not to give support to theist political parties and causes.

I poo on them. If they can't be convinced already with what's floating out there, it's because they DON'T WANT to be. Dawkins has explained atheism in 40 different, unambiguous ways already yet you have idiots like memorize or camaro just never ever understanding it and ( I suspect ) willfully so.

So yeah, enough words already.

The concept of gods is as silly as all the rest, they should get no special treatment when ghosts, fairies, magic etc. don't.

I actually think this is a relevant discussion to have when we're talking about the concept of 'belief', especially in terms of our existence. At what point do we stop being 'agnostic' about 'philosophy 101' concepts?

At the point where you feel actual pain and pleasure and can pretty much figure out that no matter how hard you try to believe otherwise, reality seems to be entirely responsible for them.

I can't be agnostic about the pain I feel when I get kicked in the nuts. Everything else about the universe derives from the assumption that I can avoid future nut-kicking in a predictable fashion using reasoning and science, which, as it turns out, is always true.

The other answer is that you can't be agnostic about concepts that change nothing. For instance: The Matrix. What does it mean to be "agnostic" about the idea that we're all in the matrix? Well it means the same as being "agnostic" about the idea of a wizard casting a spell on everyone WHILE IN THE MATRIX WHILE IN INCEPTION WHILE IN A DREAM FROM A MONKEY SITTING ON THE MOON WHICH IS REALLY THE EGG OF A COSMIC TURTLE HOLY SHIT.

The idea of being "undecided" on things that decide nothing is useless. I can't even bet on it. Are we in the matrix? Well that can't ever be proven, I can't ever bet on it and it doesn't change a god damned thing.

So if I was going to answer a political survey with "Yes I am open to the possibility of being in the Matrix" I would look like an idiot because it would be obvious to everyone that I could list an infinite amount of these universe-neutral scenarios to "be open to".

So yes, back to rule 1, since the world behaves exactly the same as if it was observable and predictable, and you stand to gain or lose a lot of pain by observing these rules, you can't be a dipshit philo 101 student and piss your life away on "discovering" elementary logical concepts all day long. Philosophy's time is over anyway. Not that there ever was a time for it really. Again based on rule 1, you can't "figure out" everything in your head.

So really. Pretty useless.

At 1/31/13 10:02 AM, Ceratisa wrote: Do you think we know that much honestly? We don't, in general only the educated understand how little we know.

"Idiots know, the competent ask."

And Socrates said "I know enough to know that I know nothing" which I've always kind of liked.

My point was, in the middle ages when a huge chunk of the population died of some horrible plague or whatever, society didn't know there was such a thing as microorganisms, vaccines, DNA, red blood cells, airborne contamination or whatever, and the best explanation that people could come up with was "oh it was God's will" and that would have to suffice before they had a better explanation. As our knowledge about the world grew, the term God got pushed back further and further.

I'm not saying for a second that we know everything now, but I'm saying the need for a concept like a God is now only reserved for those very big cosmic questions that science hasn't cracked yet.

At 1/31/13 06:14 AM, Earfetish wrote: It looks like I have pissed you off, which was not my intention, and for that I apologise.

I apologize too for being a bitch, but you're smart enough to see the difference between telling someone that what they say is wrong, and telling them what they say is foolish; especially when one of the first things you've said here was "I treat everyone I speak to with respect" . Anyway, moving on :)

If the average Christian found out that their soul would be put in Hell and they would be tortured for all eternity unless they became Muslim, they would likely do all they possibly could to avoid eternal hellfire. I really don't know why you would say atheists would not respond to their beliefs being proved incorrect in anything less than a sensible way.

But a christian already lives with the concept of a higher power that does give a shit about what s/he does. They already live fearing the possibility of being tortured for eternity. An atheist has reevaluated his morals and general way of living focusing on what happens here, now, in this life. I'm not being absolute about this; maybe some atheists would become religious in that case.

Despite rejecting religion due to absence of proof, you also reject it for not agreeing with its moral code. Would an atheist who has taught himself to stand to their own two feet agree with being god's "servant" and humiliating himself (cause that's what confessing and repenting is) to gain salvation? Would they agree with the fact that their mere thoughts can be sins they should feel ashamed of? My examples may be just regarding the christian religion, but I think you get my point.

I was not trying to put words in your mouth - you said that agnostics do not exclude the possibility of religion being correct, and I was asking you to further explain what you meant about this, using examples. From my experience, many agnostics actually do exclude the possibility of any religion being correct and would use the exact same arguments against a Christian as an atheist would.

That's strong agnosticism, which is quite close to atheism anyway. I read yesterday that atheism is about belief, while agnosticism is about knowledge, which was pretty much what I was trying to prove. I don't know, maybe I took it too far trying to explain that these are two different things. It just makes sense to me that not dismissing religion altogether might lead to accepting it given proof.

Probably those who became atheists out of spite.

Could you also explain what you mean by this?

Don't you know any cases of people calling themselves atheists as a reaction to being supressed by it, feeling that god has failed them, or just trying to make an impression (or even hurt others)? I think that these people still secretly believe in god and feel that rejecting him might lead to him showing himself to them, and they would run back to him scared out of their wits if he did. And like I said to DickChick, if you have real arguments about why you don't believe and have kicked religion out of your life, why would you? (by the way, DickChick, "expand" doesn't mean "rephrase" - tell me where I'm wrong and what your definition would be.)

At 1/29/13 12:23 AM, Xombiehacker wrote: (For the record, I'm agnostic and believe not that there is no god, but that I won't decide one way or the other until given true proof one way or the other.)

You can't prove there is a god, cause if you have proof, then you have no need to believe. And if you can't believe in God, then he's unnecessary.
I usually don't judge people based on their religion, but to all the atheists out there, I have to say this: Have a happy afterlife.

At 1/31/13 11:30 AM, abbiegale wrote: (by the way, DickChick, "expand" doesn't mean "rephrase" - tell me where I'm wrong and what your definition would be.)

Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism.

Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief, so it's compatible with both atheism and theism. A theist can believe in god without claiming to know for sure that he exists, which makes him an agnostic theist.

Atheism simply means a disbelief in gods. An atheist does not necessarily claim to know either way if gods exist or not. In fact he may choose not to believe in gods because he does not know. In that case he would also be an agnostic atheist.

Most people that call themselves agnostics are actually atheists who use the label to claim that they're somehow more open minded than atheists. In fact most of the atheists they look down upon are agnostics as well because they don't claim to have absolute knowledge of the existence of deities.

It's possible to not believe either way but that belief doesn't necessarily make you open minded, it just means that you don't believe in anything.

Once can publicly criticize religion and publicly admit to their disbelief in gods while still being open minded. One can adopt an anti-religious stance while still being open minded. Criticism is not the same as intolerance. Hearing criticism doesn't hurt anyone's right to believe what they want.

At 1/31/13 11:30 AM, abbiegale wrote:

Don't you know any cases of people calling themselves atheists as a reaction to being supressed by it, feeling that god has failed them, or just trying to make an impression (or even hurt others)?

As far as I know, those are mostly religious people who have an "atheist" phase in their teens and then go on to say bullshit like "OH I USED TO BE AN ATHEIST BUT I AM NOW BORN-AGAIN". But they never were atheists nor did they ever understand why they should be.

There's just about no adult atheist that I've ever known or heard of who's doing it to "piss god of" as religious people love to pretend. Then they go "OH WHY PISS OF A GOD YOU SAY YOU DON'T EVEN BELIEVE IN??? CHECKMATE!!".

This is the same as the "I used to be a skeptic!!" people. Here's a hint: No actual skeptic ever said nor will ever say "I used to be a skeptic".
That's like saying you used to understand how to add numbers together, but now you KNOW how to ..not do that anymore..??

If you're not a skeptic anymore, you never understood why the hell you should be one in the first place. Unless you suffer brain damage, skepticism is an acquired set of thought processes and tools to help you understand the world. Even if you believed in Sasquatch and ghosts, you'd still be a skeptic if you believe for the right reasons. ( Of course in the real world, those reasons don't exist ).

Sadly, "atheism" is not a rigorous mental guideline so anyone could be one and thus have an "atheist phase' before being tricked into believing in gods / magic by whatever nonsense.
But yah, doubt that happens a whole lot and it certainly doesn't happen to the smarter ones haha.

At 1/31/13 02:13 PM, DickChick wrote: copied stuff

Wow, you're really good at rephrasing. This has about.com written all over it. For fuck's sake, I was reading those things just yesterday!

Obviously, if theism is a belief in a God and atheism is a lack of a belief in a God, no third position or middle ground is possible.

Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge - it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism.
If atheism is just disbelief in gods,

It's ok to research and use what you find when you respond. Trying to pass it as your own definition (which is, after all, what I asked for) isn't.

At 1/31/13 03:12 PM, poxpower wrote: As far as I know, those are mostly religious people who have an "atheist" phase in their teens [...]. There's just about no adult atheist that I've ever known or heard of who's doing it to "piss god of" as religious people love to pretend.

I used to think so, too, but you would be surprised by how immature adults can be, and how they might never get over that phase. As an example, this was recently discussed in General; it's a woman explaining why she raises her child without god, bitching all the way about how unfair and absent god is, and how he teaches all bad things to people. And I've seen the bitch's picture, she isn't even a young adult, she must be around fucking 40!

But yah, doubt that happens a whole lot and it certainly doesn't happen to the smarter ones haha.

Never said that >:> And stop giggling.

At 1/31/13 04:33 PM, abbiegale wrote: It's ok to research and use what you find when you respond. Trying to pass it as your own definition (which is, after all, what I asked for) isn't.

I never said that it was my own definition and I could have given you my sources if you had asked for them.
All I said was that it was a word with a dictionary definition, and your interpretation doesn't match it.

At 1/31/13 04:55 PM, DickChick wrote: I never said that it was my own definition and I could have given you my sources if you had asked for them.
All I said was that it was a word with a dictionary definition, and your interpretation doesn't match it.

That's the point! When you post something that isn't yours (even if you've altered it) you don't wait to be asked! You mention your sources immediately. Especially when someone asks for your own opinion. You don't think I can find the dictionary definition myself? I'm interested in what YOU have to say, and how YOU interpret that definition. Plus, I've already used a "dictionary definition" and it didn't work.

I'm still waiting for you to explain me where I'm wrong. It's not a challenge, I really want to know what I'm doing wrong here.

I'm confused now because if you knew the definition all along it doesn't make any sense that you'd draw the distinction between agnostic and atheist based on whether or not they reject religion.

The definitions of words aren't subjective.

At 1/31/13 05:05 PM, abbiegale wrote: I'm still waiting for you to explain me where I'm wrong. It's not a challenge, I really want to know what I'm doing wrong here.

You said "while atheists fully reject religion, agnostics don't".
That's not valid because atheists can still be open to the idea of religion.

At 1/31/13 05:07 PM, DickChick wrote: I'm confused now because if you knew the definition all along it doesn't make any sense that you'd draw the distinction between agnostic and atheist based on whether or not they reject religion.

The definitions of words aren't subjective.

Interpretations are. And definitions aren't really that definite; this whole thread is an example of how people have their own. They only serve as tools for communication, no one can say "that's that" and be done with it.

At 1/31/13 05:14 PM, abbiegale wrote: Interpretations are. And definitions aren't really that definite; this whole thread is an example of how people have their own. They only serve as tools for communication, no one can say "that's that" and be done with it.

To an extent, but your definition differs too much to be an interpretation. No matter how you spin it the difference between atheists and agnostics is not that atheists fully reject religion. That's what at least two people have been saying to you for the last page or so.

At 1/31/13 05:09 PM, DickChick wrote: You said "while atheists fully reject religion, agnostics don't".
That's not valid because atheists can still be open to the idea of religion.

How?

At 1/31/13 04:33 PM, abbiegale wrote:

I used to think so, too, but you would be surprised by how immature adults can be, and how they might never get over that phase. As an example, this was recently discussed in General; it's a woman explaining why she raises her child without god, bitching all the way about how unfair and absent god is,

There's actually nothing wrong with any of her points. Well except for the last thing where she says she doesn't want religion to go away because it's "personal". It's never personal. Religious people make decisions based on religion, that includes voting.

Anyway, the very act of using religion to teach right and wrong is bad in itself. Why do you need God to explain this to kids? There's obvious reasons for every law and moral action we take that don't depend on Jesus sending you to hell if you're naughty.

Atheism is getting closer and closer to a religion every day. It has millions of people who follow it, and it even has it's own sects.

At 2/1/13 02:08 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 2/1/13 01:55 PM, Shade wrote: Atheism is getting closer and closer to a religion every day. It has millions of people who follow it, and it even has it's own sects.

They believe in not believing. Its own belief system.

And they even have their own zealots who want to push their beliefs onto others.

At 1/29/13 06:15 AM, Earfetish wrote: The late great Hitchens used to describe himself as an anti-theist. New slang? He first said it like five years ago.

âEUoeI am not even an atheist so much as an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually true.... There may be people who wish to live their lives under cradle-to-grave divine supervision, a permanent surveillance and monitoring. But I cannot imagine anything more horrible or grotesque.âEU

Ie - I don't believe in God, but even if I did, I'd hate him because he is a dick.

Though I do agree with that last part, you don't really have the right to tell unto others what they can or cannot believe just as they don't have the right to tell you. And yes it is true that to the extremes religion is harmful, but to the extremes anything can be harmful. Also, I didn't know that about Hitchens... then again I don't know who he is, but neat fact :D

At 2/1/13 02:08 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

At 2/1/13 01:55 PM, Shade wrote: Atheism is getting closer and closer to a religion every day. It has millions of people who follow it, and it even has it's own sects.

They believe in not believing. Its own belief system.

Atheism is not a belief system, it is the rejection of the claim that a god exists. To say that atheism is a belief system is analogous to saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

No-one would try to argue that lack of belief in unicorns or pixies (or anything for that matter) is a belief system and the fact that this logic is exclusively applied to gods is idiotic.

At 2/1/13 10:16 PM, Xombiehacker wrote:

Though I do agree with that last part, you don't really have the right to tell unto others what they can or cannot believe just as they don't have the right to tell you.

What does THAT even mean?

??
As if me telling someone they can't believe a thing would make them not believe that thing??

You have the right to tell someone they're wrong for believing something all day long. For instance, if you believe horses have 5 legs. You are wrong. I am telling you that you are wrong. It can't stop you from believing it if you want, but you are still wrong.