Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait... why are Agnostics and Atheists arguing AGAINST each other? It seems very unreasonable as both parties have a very similar belief systems or rather disbelief systems. Agnostics and atheists don't conform to the rules of some bronze age and meaningless texts. Atheists and agnostics reject religious doctrines and most consider them mundane to the human species. The only formulated difference in in the metaphysical sense of the belief in a deity.

Atheism has it origins in Greek and Latin and basically means Godless in that sense.

"I am Zarathustra the Godless"

It implies roughly the same meaning but it's been over 2500 years so the definition has been changed throughout the course of the word's history. Currently it refers to the "disbelief in a God or deity"

Agnosticism is classical Greek means "without (spiritual) knowledge" has also has it's etymology changed and skewed throughout the years. Basically it characterizes a sense of uncertainty that a God exists or doesn't exist.

So, to me the difference is relatively small. The wasted energy attacking these small differences is laughable. I really don't understand why some agnostics and atheists need to attack each other in such a ludicrous fashion. I guess it probably has to do with agnostics being pigeon-holed as atheists because they don't conform to a religion but now I am starting to pick on one side and that's something I don't want to do.

Basically, what I am saying is these ad hominem attacks between atheists and agnostics and the strawman arguments is absolutely pointless. Agnostics and atheists should NOT waste energy on fighting against each other over such worthless issues such as definition and labeling (I personally like to call myself Godless rather than atheist as it is more harsh sounding, but both imply the same thing, it's personal preference I guess).

This energy should be directed at the enemies of reason. The religious leaders, the psychic charlatans, the propagators of pseudo-science and anti-science (all the astrologers, parapsychologists and ghost hunters). Agnostics, athiests and skeptics of all kinds should branch together and fight the real enemies instead of bickering amongst each other.

Excuse me if this comes across as white knighting, but I am making a valid point. This "agnosticism vs atheism" thing is fucking pointless and stupid.

At 2/24/10 03:20 AM, JohnnyWang wrote:

Also, I'd like to just ppoint out that your argument about the amount of dictionaries is just hilarious. Do you even know why people write different dictionaries?

Yes I do. What I meant is that there might be more definitions than just one. Should have explained it this way. Sorry.

At 2/24/10 03:27 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote:

Excuse me if this comes across as white knighting, but I am making a valid point. This "agnosticism vs atheism" thing is fucking pointless and stupid.

You are right in fact. I'm not saying atheism suck. And I am not fighting with you guys either. Except for this guy who constantly come back with his arshe comments on how stupid I am.

My only critic towards atheism is that they say "There CANNOT be a God"
Well, am I right to say so? Cause I really thought that this was THE big difference between atheism and agnostism

At 2/24/10 04:19 AM, HeavenDuff wrote:

At 2/24/10 03:27 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote:

Excuse me if this comes across as white knighting, but I am making a valid point. This "agnosticism vs atheism" thing is fucking pointless and stupid.

You are right in fact. I'm not saying atheism suck. And I am not fighting with you guys either. Except for this guy who constantly come back with his arshe comments on how stupid I am.

My only critic towards atheism is that they say "There CANNOT be a God"
Well, am I right to say so? Cause I really thought that this was THE big difference between atheism and agnostism

I don't know many atheists with such an attitude problem who explicitly and only say "There isn't a god" in any sort of rational debate and frankly, let them say it, they aren't making a serious attempt to disprove a God, they're just express their opinions. See, if this was a debate I would say: "I find no reason to believe in a god based on example 1, example 2 and example 3." I'm giving you this abridged version because I had down this in many topics before, and I could easily replace the word God with any other baloney claims.

Plus, as I illustrated earlier, the differences between agnostics and atheists are so small that it's absolutely pointless for use to bicker. We have bigger fish to fry. Such as Pope Benedict the XVI. Possibly the most followed enemy of reason I've seen. Considering how he blames us, the atheists and agnostics for all the evils of the world. Oh, that motherfucker.. well, technically boy-fucker Cardinal Ratzinger, that rat-faced, boy-touching bigotted piece of shit has thrown down the motherfucking gauntlet. You know this can not end well considering all the awful things the Catholic Church has done, what with the support of the Nazi Party, The Inquisition, The Crusades and the list goes on. Also, not to exclude the horrible things done by past Popes such as Sixtus VI, Innocent VIII and Alexander VI. Lot of evil fuckers were Popes. Eat it Ratzinger!

Now, aside from the jokingly ad hominem attack on the pope and the Catholic church, altough I am enjoying it. Basically this atheism vs agnosticism you guys have going on is really all ad hominem and strawman... as well as a use of limited vocabulary.

Ad hominem, for those who don't know is attacking the arguer and not the argument. This is no way to make your point and should not be used as a blunt instrument against the person you're debating with.

Straw men is caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack.

As for the limited vocabulary. there are other words besides those four letter ones. I am by FAR a moral puritan (I call myself and immoralist quite frankly). But, over using them only makes you look foolish. Not a good thing.

There also might be appeal to ignorance, but frankly this debate is too laughable to read.

At 2/24/10 01:37 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: You will have to name me these fucking books, give me fucking quotations from these books and stop acting like if all human beings could ever accept the exact same definition for a concept.

Look at picture.

How stupid do you look right now? Very.

I'm studying politic in University and for each concept we have at least 3 or 4 definitions by different others. So stop pretending to know what you are talking about. Unless you give me fucking facts your argument will have no fucking kind of value.

Good for you, but what the hell does politics have to do with what we're talking about? This is also rhetorical, NOTHING.

Your fucking dictionnaries you keep mentionning every two seconds!! Holy balls!

Because I'm....right?

And you are swallowing cum.

And?....

Seriously. There is a fucking difference between a theory and the actual facts. It's not cause "in your dictionnaries" they make a specific definition of what atheism is... that REAL atheists are all the fucking same!

Oh look, my dictionary DOES give a specific definition.

Are you fucking dumb? Have you ever met a fucking atheist who believe in afterlife?

Yes. I just happen to be related to an Atheist who believes in an afterlife. His girlfriend is also an Atheist who believes in an afterlife. I know an Atheist at work who believes in an afterlife. I used to believe in an afterlife and I was as much of an Atheist then as I was now.

Probably not.

So you're assuming an answer to a question and making an argument off it...wow. You must go to a really crap university.

Why? Because in the freakin REALITY, not believing in God and not believing in an afterlife pretty much goes together in like 99% of the fucking cases.

Every single Atheist from the time when atheists were defined could disbelieve in an afterlife and IT WOULD STILL HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM!!!!!!

Afterlife =/= Atheism.

But I would love to see a study which suggests that every atheist disbelieves in an afterlife.

It's funny, you're demanding facts off me when you haven't provided any yourself.

You see only what you want to see. You couldn't possibly try to understand my point of view.
Therefore I'm not the dumbass over here. I'm not stupid, stop acting like you are more intelligent than me. Cause you obviously cannot understand or even try to understand my point of view.

I understand it perfectly.

"A lot of atheists whom I've yet to mention don't believe in an afterlife therefore I'm linking them when nothing has ever suggested it".

Atheists also breath the air in our atmosphere, does that mean we're all Atheists because we breath?

Who told you that? Another one of your so called dictionnaries?
An agnostic can use is fucking brain and make assumptions.
And since Science gave the world a lot of informations on the human body and human brain, I would tend to believe that there is no god. Could I be wrong? yes.

So hang on.

You're bastardising the accurate definitions of words just so you can call yourself one thing and say another?

It mucken fhsh ghskhgjkslshg kshhfhghg

Dictionaries are useless right? So no point using actual words.

THfahshkshhghsk hfhskshgjvhfhjeueuhfhfgs

Dictionaries are there for a reason you twit.

And you are still the only moron reacting that way in the thread. Oh well...

And?... Do you want some special treatment little boy? Get a grip.

Your basic definitions are just fucking words in books!!!

Like these?

hfhhaksjhfkaseue783838tfhhfdgsgskksghkkl fhhjd.

Dictionaries are just words in books, right?

Medical diagnostics are also in books. So are health and safety guidelines. So are the plans to building jet airliners.

There's a lot of things in books. They're used for distributing information so when the discoverer/inventor/whatever dies the knowledge is not lost.

Books written by humans!!!

All books are written by humans, like the schematics for your computer.

Why would there be 11 dictionnaries with definitions of atheism if, like you said, the definition was so obvious? Why would they waste their time re-writting it if it was already perfect?

You'll have to ask the publisher. But then again, why isn't there only one publisher? Why do many companies print the same book but some are hard back, some are paper back and a lot have different titles?

I love the fact that you're trying to degrade the usefulness of dictionaries but what you're actually doing is trying to degrade all books, which is just stupid.

What you just cannot seem to understand is that there is a difference between the theory (or the definitions) and what is really going on in the reality.

Then therefore every definition can be scrutinised. With this logic politicians are not longer politicians, they're unicorns. You're still not an agnostic, you're a marshmallow.

I'm loving this game. You're so high and mighty with the ways of words.

And yes, now I am using insults, cause you keep claiming I'm a moron, so go fuck yourself and try to get something to support your argument next time.

Ha! Hypocrite. You've given fuck all to this argument and you're criticising me for it? Bullshit.

But either way, I'm done arguing with you. You're unbelievably annoying and even more stupid than I previously thought.

LOOK AT THE PICTURE DUMBFUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 2/24/10 05:31 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote:

There also might be appeal to ignorance, but frankly this debate is too laughable to read.

Amen to all you said. No more shall I waste my time on this.

Amen lulz, seee what I did there?

At 2/24/10 05:31 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote: Basically this atheism vs agnosticism you guys have going on is really all ad hominem and strawman... as well as a use of limited vocabulary.

An AH is only classed as such when it's used as a substitute to a rebuttal. It's not when it's added to one.

Is ph0ne still here?

Can I come out yet?

At 2/25/10 01:34 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 2/24/10 05:31 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote: Basically this atheism vs agnosticism you guys have going on is really all ad hominem and strawman... as well as a use of limited vocabulary.

An AH is only classed as such when it's used as a substitute to a rebuttal. It's not when it's added to one.

There's more than one way to commit ad hominem. The common usage is attacking the arguer and not the argument. Calling a person a moron in an argument is no way to win an argument.

Fun point, claiming the opponent used an ad homminem can also be an ad hominem. Metad Hominem!

At 2/26/10 01:21 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: Fun point, claiming the opponent used an ad homminem can also be an ad hominem. Metad Hominem!

Not really. Since you are attacking his insult-argument and not him...

At 2/25/10 01:58 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Is ph0ne still here?

Can I come out yet?

There there, it's safe now.

At 2/26/10 11:11 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 2/25/10 01:58 PM, ArmouredGRIFFON wrote: Is ph0ne still here?

Can I come out yet?

There there, it's safe now.

For the time being, at least.

At 2/26/10 12:56 AM, MattTheParanoidKat wrote: There's more than one way to commit ad hominem. The common usage is attacking the arguer and not the argument. Calling a person a moron in an argument is no way to win an argument.

Your example shows the "attack" is used as a substitute to the rebuttal, which is what I said in the first place.

lolwut?

At 2/28/10 12:17 PM, TheUnwisePoet wrote: lolwut?

Many spiritual figures are shown with that same handsign, whether they be Christian or non-Christian. It's an interesting similarity, but doesn't mean they're satanic. I could go into a long speech detailing this and everything behind stuff like this, but no one here would be that interested.

At 2/28/10 01:05 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

At 2/28/10 12:17 PM, TheUnwisePoet wrote: lolwut?

Many spiritual figures are shown with that same handsign, whether they be Christian or non-Christian. It's an interesting similarity, but doesn't mean they're satanic. I could go into a long speech detailing this and everything behind stuff like this, but no one here would be that interested.

I forgot to mention that it's written in the bible: 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

At 2/28/10 03:53 PM, TheUnwisePoet wrote: I forgot to mention that it's written in the bible: 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

Sigh... let's not stoop to childish arguments like that. It's not like there aren't bigger holes in the bible.

Also, the convention of depicting Jesus with long hair is a late medieval invention. Currently, certain fundamentalist groups also advocate a view of him having thick, but short hair.

Of course, we all know that all those pictures are wrong anyway. Jesus was black.

At 2/28/10 04:15 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:
Of course, we all know that all those pictures are wrong anyway. Jesus was black.

GREAT!

haha

At 3/2/10 04:27 PM, ph0ne wrote: How about this?

Geocentrism was a religious dogma.
Heliocentrism (which you spelled wrong) is more or less still valid.
Flat earth, another religious dogma.
Climate change is a fact. Stop saying it isn't.
Which theory of relativity?
Classic elements come from ancient religion.
Newton's laws are mostly right, they were improved.
Humours was religious dogma.
Astrology is superstition and was never a science.
Alchemy was just experimenting.

Are you just playing stupid or what? And it's science's job to discredit old ideas and replace them with new ones.

As for religion -- I guess you refer to Christianity, because when people talk about "religion vs. atheism/science" they mean Christianity. Never Islam, Judaism, Hindu or any of the others -- Now, just the internal and interloping contradiction of these religions would imply that a lot of the religions are wrong if one fo them is right. And the bible.... are you shitting me? There's a million of holes.

Hey I've been reading about LaVeyan Satanism, and I rediscovered myself, since we are all satanists when we born until your parents start to feed your mind with stuff, anyway I still fit well here, and my opinion is that you're all LaVeyan Satanists, but it's just names so... you call yourself what you want..

At 3/2/10 04:52 PM, TheUnwisePoet wrote: since we are all satanists when we born

Self centered and stupid?

At 3/2/10 05:43 PM, ph0ne wrote:

When has it actually been proven that the Bible has factual discrepancies? Oh right, never.

Let's see, it was written by man. It did not magically appear. Man makes mistakes. It has been edited so many times. I think you are confusing factual evidence with hearsay.

At 3/2/10 05:43 PM, ph0ne wrote: When has it actually been proven that the Bible has factual discrepancies? Oh right, never.

Well snakes can't talk.
Women can't be made from ribs.
Men can't be made from dust.
Wine can't be magicked into water.
Etc, etc.

There isn't any point in trying though. Religious people will remain as stubborn as ever.

At 3/2/10 05:53 PM, ph0ne wrote: How do you know?

I just do. You see, I'm God.

Trying to use 'scientific' sources, so called, to disprove science. That is powerful stupid right there.
BTW, there are contradictory theories constantly; there are scientists that will still tell you dinosaurs aren't extinct. You see, there in lies the difference between hypothesis', theories, well accepted theories, and laws.
Any jackass can come up with a hypothesis. I could hypothesize that gerbil intelligence is on par with that of human beings. But if I can't prove it in observation/experimentation, and repeat it, it is debunked.
If it makes it past the hypothesis stage, it's a theory. it has had experimentation and it is based in rationality.
The next is a well accepted theory. This is the last one plus more evidence and significant scientific consensus. 'Scientific' as in NOT Yahoo! Answers. That, and read more carefully' "His work builds upon that of Einstein", or "He has helped to build our understanding of physics by perfecting and expanding upon Newton's laws". That doesn't debunk either of them, in fact it commends them. They discovered fundamental laws of our Universe.
To be a law, something must have massive amounts of evidence, be able to be proven, and has to have a large consensus in the scientific community. Once again, the opinion of PiMpInG32 and freddi69 don't really factor in.

As for us believing in God? When you can show us theories with scientific rigor, or when you can show us God physically or mathematically to exist, we'll reconsider. But so long as you base it off an ancient book inundated in mythology, the answer will remain no.
So show us how you can talk over water and turn it into wine; show us a snake that can talk; show us how a being that cannot be shown to directly influence anything defied, literally, every law of physics.

At 3/2/10 05:53 PM, ph0ne wrote:

At 3/2/10 05:51 PM, Nev wrote: Well snakes can't talk.
Women can't be made from ribs.
Men can't be made from dust.
Wine can't be magicked into water.
Etc, etc.

How do you know? Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it's impossible.

You just said it there. It's NEVER been done before!!!^

At 3/2/10 05:53 PM, ph0ne wrote: How do you know? Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it's impossible.

HOW DO YOU KNOW ALCHEMY IS BULLSHIT

you're not allowed to post in here ph0ne, fuck off

At 3/2/10 07:24 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 3/2/10 05:53 PM, ph0ne wrote: How do you know? Just because it's never been done before doesn't mean it's impossible.

HOW DO YOU KNOW ALCHEMY IS BULLSHIT

you're not allowed to post in here ph0ne, fuck off

You are real??? I thought you left or something.

At 3/2/10 05:43 PM, ph0ne wrote:

At 3/2/10 04:46 PM, JohnnyWang wrote:

At 3/2/10 04:27 PM, ph0ne wrote: How about this?

Geocentrism was a religious dogma.

Sure it was.
/sarcasm

It was, see Ptolemy. This goes way back to ancient Greek and Egypt.

Heliocentrism (which you spelled wrong) is more or less still valid.

Wrong.

Conpernicus. And it was in part right. Not that the Sun is the center of the universe, but the fact the planets go around the sun. Also see Kepler's Law's of Planetary Motion.

Flat earth, another religious dogma.

Not really. At the time when it was a popular idea there was much reason to believe in it. Place yourself in those times and you'll realize it.

Are you fucking high? In the Bible and Qu'ran it was implicity stated that the Earth was flat. And the notion that the Earth was round was broken 200 years before that. See Eratosthenes.

Climate change is a fact. Stop saying it isn't.

Except it's not.
Also, here.

You can't deny the EVIDENCE!!!

Which theory of relativity?

Einstein's.

Um... it's not wrong. In fact scientists, when trying to prove a theory about the universe try to disprove the Special Theory of Relativity... or atleast a portion of it. They haven't, at least not yet.

Classic elements come from ancient religion.

Sure they do.

Earth is one of the four classical elements in ancient Greek philosophy and science.

The classic elements? Seriously? The classic elements stem from the 5 platonic solids, which is mathematics which is an important part of science. The classical elements are a philosophical thought and it's not scientific. Christianity and superstition adopted the classical elements and much of Plato's philosophy. See Pythagoras and Plato.

Newton's laws are mostly right, they were improved.

Ok, sure.

Newtonian mechanics breaks down at very high speeds. On our planet, Newtonian mechanics seems ideal, out in the vast vacuum of space moving at tremendous speeds or under enormous weight it's when we enter Special Theory of Relativity.

Humours was religious dogma.

Uh huh.

Based on the classic elements which we've establish was NOT science

Astrology is superstition and was never a science.

Reminds me of Evolution.

Astrology is the study that the stars determine fate, it has NOTHING to do with science. History lesson! Astronomy has it roots in Astrology, but Astronomy broke free of the superstition around the time of Galileo and Johannes Kepler.Astrology for the longest time held back the real study of stars because Astology was so popular most people could not understand the difference. When it broke free, Astrology was still popular, but real science no longer had any place in it.

Also, Evolution is a fact.

Alchemy was just experimenting.

Experimenting to prove a point = science.

Do you have any understanding of science? It's not to prove a point, it's to find out how the world really fucking works. Alchemy was pretty much trying to turn metals into gold or other things.

Are you just playing stupid or what? And it's science's job to discredit old ideas and replace them with new ones.

So science is constantly proving itself wrong. Will you ever find the real answer?

Science is not discrediting old ideas but rather updating it once scientists have a better understanding of the world. Science IS the only displine that corrects itself once new ideas are brought up. See Occam's Razor.

As for religion -- I guess you refer to Christianity, because when people talk about "religion vs. atheism/science" they mean Christianity. Never Islam, Judaism, Hindu or any of the others -- Now, just the internal and interloping contradiction of these religions would imply that a lot of the religions are wrong if one fo them is right. And the bible.... are you shitting me? There's a million of holes.

When has it actually been proven that the Bible has factual discrepancies? Oh right, never.

Let's see, we have the Bible saying the Earth is flat and less than 6000 years old, the absence of physical proof that Egypt owned any slaves, the whole flood story account of fitting every species onto a boat, you'd need a century to round up EVERY animal and build a boat that fucking massive. And speaking of Noah's Ark, see The Epic of Gilgamesh motherfucker. The list goes on for the facutal inconsistencies, but the moral inconsistencies are even longer and funnier. Hey Jesus, yyou're supposed to be the nice guy in the book, yet you say that Children should be stoned based on the actions of their parents. Yeah, fuck you JC.

My analysis: Ph0ne is a troll!

I would seriously prefer it if you guys ignored ph0ne and didn't reply to his posts. I know he bumps this thread and allegedly creates conversation, but I'd rather that you didn't pay attention to him / feed the troll, because I don't think he's providing anything in the slightest and conversation with someone completely non-stimulating is still non-stimulating conversation, even if the other participant is attempting to say something clever.

We've had a lot of different people who've contributed to this club with contrary opinions, and ph0ne isn't one of them. It's best if we ignore him.

Whatever authority I, the club founder, still have in this place, I implore you to not reply to ph0ne and to wait until someone who isn't a troll / nutjob / entirely single-issue poster comes along. Other clubs do not put up with this shit, and they're better for it. Fuck it if it means less posts - if you want to bump the thread, do it with an interesting link or write about an insightful subject, rather than waste a response to ph0ne.

Like what I'm doing now.

The Science of Homeopathy