/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3228715
Sorry for the typos. Typing on a netbook at 12:08am after working is not a fun/easy task.

Agnosticism is the belief that nobody alive today, or who has ever been alive knows if god(s) exist or not. This is a rather open answer to such a grand question, which is why most scientists choose atheism because it is a solid belief, and not as open as atheism.

Russel Teapot Agnostic

/thread

Dammit /sci/ Cancer

>Agnostic Atheist
>Doesn't believe in gods (different from believing that there are no gods. Simply a lack of belief.) but doesn't claim to know whether or not gods exist.

Atheism deals with belief, agnosticism deals with knowledge. They aren't mutually exclusive.

>>3228781
This

OP is a fucking idiot, try to judge on personal experience there, the people you are talking about are gnostic atheists, learn your definitions before calling other people unresearched

>>3228781
>Doesn't believe in gods (different from believing that there are no gods. Simply a lack of belief.) but doesn't claim to know whether or not gods exist.

No.
Thats atheism.
Agnostic is saying that whether god exists or not is unknown or unknowable.

Why are people so fucking afraid of being wrong?
I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I wont change my mind if evidence for god do in fact come to my attention.

>>3228793
The terms are combined, please fucking kill yourself, it's like asking if someone is latino or a male, they have to be a latino male, or some variation of race and gender, the same why you are a gnostic/agnostic theist/atheist

THEY GO TOGETHER

>>3228802
There is plenty evidence, you know the fact that the universe exists... You are just ignorant.

>>3228804
Actually no.
Agnostic atheism and Agnosticism are COMPLETELY different.

>>3228810
That's not evidence for god.

>>3228715

Do you find the evidence for the existence for god is so poor that you do not believe in the existence of a god? Then you are an atheist. Its a matter of what you believe, not what you know.

Agnostics are the same as athiests, the strength of their belief that god does not exist is merely weaker. Its not really a third option. I find the logic agnostics use to support their belief faulty, but that's another discussion.

Even agnostic atheists, myself included, are rather idiotic. The collective human religious experience is thousands of years old, spans hundreds of cultures and has literature and ritual which that are very deep.

And you're gonna say, "I FEEEEEEEL there is no God, therefore, I think there is no God"

Yeah, that's pretty fucking arrogant.

Try opening a non-christian book, or hell, reading the Catholic Catechism start to finish.

How about you learn what you disagree with before you get all preachy and start bitching about how stupid people who believe in God are?

Yeah, agnostic atheists might be right, but 99% of them are like 3 year olds who opened a college level physics book and spout F = MA, F = MA YOU TARD. Perhaps, but let's see you argue it analytically.

>>3228812
>Agnostics are the same as athiests
>Agnostics are the same as athiests

No, Im sorry sir.
You are misinformed.

You could follow either one.
Atheism isnt a real thing either.
You believe what you believe.

I dont reject gods. Thats what atheists do.
I simply state that they are unknowable.
Thats not rejecting or accepting.

DEAL WITH IT

>>3228816
>The collective human religious experience is thousands of years old, spans hundreds of cultures and has literature and ritual which that are very deep.
But that's a logical fallacy if you conclude that god's existence has merit because of thousands of years of human history.

>>3228810
That poster is saying that you can be one of these:
Gnostic Atheist
Agnostic Atheist
Gnostic Theist
Agnostic Theist

They are not saying that atheist agnostics are the same as agnostics. They are saying that someone isn't ONLY atheist or ONLY agnostic.

>>3228715
You can be both an athiest and agnostic:

Athiest: Does not believe in god.
Agnostic: does not claim to have absolute knowledge there is no god.

to dumb;didn't read:
people who call themselves agnostic are already atheist.

>>3228822
Presumably gods that are logically inconsistent disappear in a puff of logic?

>>3228833
I just told you that you CAN be ONLY agnostic.
Read a few posts up.
>>3228834
Thats blatantly not the definition of agnostic you retard.

>>3228828
Well, I'd think if there wasn't at least a grain of truth to it, there wouldn't have ever been any religion in the first place.

>>3228841I just told you that you CAN be ONLY agnostic.

I thought the word for an agnostic agnostic was apathetic?

If there is a god, it's definitely none of the many we've dreamed up over the ages. There could be one, it's possible, but there's a difference between possibility and probability. Possibly yes, probably no. I'm atheist, for all intents and purposes.

>>3228833
Samefag.

Atheist - Doesn't believe there are gods
Theist - Does believe there are gods
Agnostic - Doesn't know whether or not there are gods
Gnostic - Does know whether or not there are gods

An Agnostic Atheist would be someone who doesn't claim to KNOW whether or not there are gods but doesn't believe in them.
A Gnostic Atheist would be someone who claims to KNOW that there are no gods and doesn't believe in any gods.
An Agnostic Theist doesn't know for sure whether or not there are gods, but still believes in them.
A Gnostic Theist definitely knows there are gods and believes in them.

Gnostic Theist and Gnostic Atheist are kind of redundant imo, because if you claim to positively know one way or the other, then obviously you're going to believe that way as well. But I can see why they're necessary distinctions.

>>3228855Well, I'd think if there wasn't at least a grain of truth to it, there wouldn't have ever been any religion in the first place.

I don't see how you draw that conclusion. People can and do start off with a lie and tack more lies on. Just look at Scientology, most religions started pretty much like that only with more violence.

>>3228833
This

/thread

Please noone feed the trolls

>>3228855
Why?
Millions of people believe in PROVEN FALSE things all the time.

>>3228860
I would like to argue that there is another option.
Agnostic.
One who claims that gods are unknown or unknowable and doesnt pick a side.

Why cant I not pick a side?
Because everyone has autism and doesn't like it when people dont pick sides. I dont really know why people do that... I guess they just want you to join their own ideas...

>>3228855
Yesterday I drove to Miami and fucked tons of bitches.

There was not a single grain of truth in that sentence. I don't think I even entered a vehicle yesterday. Just because someone says something doesn't mean there's even a sliver of truth in it.

>>3228873
I said a grain of the truth. Otherwise people would not continue to believe generation after generation and century after century in a power greater than them.

>>3228855

In 2001, 40 percent of American in a poll did not know the Sun was a star

In 600, the world was flat to everyone

>>3228874
You argue whatever you want, but your wrong

That's how definitions work

theistic agnostic checkin in here.

Our camp could be summed up in brief like the X-files: "I want to believe."

wikipedia has a very good article that delineates my camp and other varieties of agnostic/atheists. recommended reading!

I think those who choose to "believe" there is nothing beyond our worldly existence are on as shaky ground as any other religion.

I don't believe any of this has anything to do with whether another is intelligent or an asshole though.

>>3228889
That's a pretty big leap. A grain of truth is not required for generation after generation to indoctrinate the next in ignorance.

>>3228874
You can define anything you want to be anything, but all you're doing is raping the actual definition of the word.

Sure, let's call "people who really don't want to think about it, nor make up their mind" 'agnostics'
Why don't we also call "people who put out fires for a living" 'Icecream men' too?

>>3228874
because it's not 'red or blue,' it's 'on or off.'

>>3228874

By not picking a side you are automatically atheist.

>>3228889
>I said a grain of the truth.
No, not even a grain of truth is needed.
>Otherwise people would not continue to believe generation after generation and century after century in a power greater than them.
Except history has shown that people ARE willing to believe in completely false things generation after generation (mostly out of ignorance, but that's beside the point).

Talk about it elsewhere.

>>3228895
in 2010, everyone believed global warming was man-made

in 2050, global warming is conclusively determined to be a natural event

>>3228897
Why would there be anything after life?

See Burden of Proof all of you stupid motherfuckers

>>3228862
Christianity started as a slave revolt, Islam as a political move to stablize held territory, Buddhism as a revolt against the opression of Hinduism, Hinduism Judism and taoism as folk magic, Satanism as a reaction to christianity.
Except for mormonism I cant think of any that started (like scientology) as an intentional scam.

>>3228896
Ummm.
No im not wrong.
You fucking retard.

I can believe whatever I want.
Nobody has ever said "IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE AN AGNOSTIC YOU HAVE TO PICK ONE OF THESE"
No. Im just an agnostic.

Agnosticism is the view that certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.

JUST THAT.

I DONT REJECT GOD.

>>3228895
>In 2001, 40 percent of American in a poll did not know the Sun was a star

That's something any fool can look up in a book.

>In 600, the world was flat to everyone

Wrong. Even the Greeks knew the Earth was not flat.

>>3228901
>By not picking a side you are automatically atheist.

No that is wrong.
Where does it say that?

I do not reject god.

>>3228912
But you don't believe in god, so you're an atheist.

>>3228869
>2011
>posting in a religion thread
>pretending they're not feeding trolls

>>3228925
No. No im not an atheist.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.


I do NOT reject the existence of deities.

But I DO think they are unknowable.

>>3228922
>Even the Greeks knew the Earth was not flat.
Except for the atheists, who claimed that a round earth was theistic superstition.

>>3228924
Do you believe in god?

>>3228925
He hasn't rejected the idea of god, so he is definitely not an atheist.

>>3228941
Yes.
If he exists.

>>3228932
>rejection of belief
Meaning you have no belief in gods (which you have, since you don't know if they exists).
So yes, you're an atheist, deal with it.

>>3228947
Then you're a theist.

I definitely don't believe that there are any gods.
But.
I'm on the fence between being agnostic and gnostic.
On the one hand, you can't prove whether or not something exists without evidence. There is nothing supporting either side, so there's no way to say definitively that there are no gods.
But on the other hand, I'm almost positive that there aren't any. Not just in a belief sense, but in a knowledge sense as well. Religion is just a bunch of stories that people made up to give meaning to the pathetic-ness that is the human life and to make themselves feel better about death. People can't know one way or the other 100%, but I'm sure we can know like 99%.
So I guess I'm technically an agnostic atheist with gnostic tendencies?

>>3228947
So he is a theist agnostic.

>>3228951
Atheism IS NOT a lack of belief. People who spam that are bullshitters and trolls. Look in a dictionary.

>>3228952
Then so be it.

I still think its unknowable whether he actually exists.

>>3228932
>Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.
>I do NOT reject the existence of deities.

These two things are unequal. The first sentence is saying "One who does not believe" (rejects belief).
the second is saying "one who rejects the idea of" (rejects possibility of existence)

atheism is NOT the rejection of a deity, it's the lack of belief in a deity. If i ask you "do you believe in god" and you say yes, you're a theist. If you say anything other than "yes," including "i don't know," then you're an atheist. In other words:


IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHIEST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.
IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.

>>3228961
Atheism has two definitions, same as agnosticism, and many other words, deal with it.

I don't believe in fire-breathing, egg-laying rainbow-colored unicorns just the same as I don't believe in any gods.

Does that mean i'm agnostic to fire-breathing, egg-laying rainbow-colored unicorns? You can't prove or disprove their existence.

Just because one has been discussed (yet never proven) for thousands of years and the other I just invented doesn't mean god is more credible.

Bullshit + time = not bullshit? What?

>>3228968
>>3228968
>>3228968
Atheism IS NOT a lack of belief.
Atheism IS NOT a lack of belief.
Atheism IS NOT a lack of belief.
Atheism IS NOT a lack of belief.

>>3228968
>IF YOU'RE NOT A THEIST, YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY AN ATHEIST.

>2011
>putting all your thoughts in dichotomies

>>3228910

why shouldn't there?

and in any case you're putting words in my mouth to make an unrelated point. straw man argument - go back to start!

I have no particular belief that an afterlife does or does not exist - i merely believe it's just as possible as reincarnation, waking up outside of the matrix, or a complete absence.

>>3228912
They are not unknowable, god could say, here's where the fuck I am,

>your point makes any sense
>implying

>>3228961

Meriam-Webster:
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Two forms.

>>3228984
Why would it be just as possible, and the fact that you said why shouldn't there be defines burden of proof -_-

>>3228988
>They are not unknowable, god could say, here's where the fuck I am,

I agree with that.

But for now its unknowable imo. Not 100% on that.

>>3228984
>why shouldn't there?
Because our current understanding is that consciousness (aka, the "YOU") relates to the brain and its activity (poke/damage in the right places, and your subjective experience changes), which means that no brain = no you.

>i merely believe it's just as possible as reincarnation, waking up outside of the matrix, or a complete absence.
Well, then you are very ignorant of the evidence (and has a lack of understanding of probabilities)

>>3228999
HUrRR Burden of PROOF

Hurrr

"Im gonna follow other peoples laws just because its on wikipedia"

Anything is possible. Everything is an axiom. Logic is subjective. You are a retard for believing in ANYTHING or rejecting ANYTHING.

It is just as likely a pink unicorn shit out the universe as the big bang.

ETC
YOU CANT PROVE ME WRONG

DEAL WITH IT

AGNOSTICS>>>>>>> WINNING SINCE BEFORE TIME

>>3229000
It's unknowable the same way the fact that an invisible pink unicorn fucking you up the ass in unknowable to me, I have no evidence for it, and the one person who could prove it is apperently deciding not to, does that mean I should consider this gay unicorn as a scientific possility? Fuck no, you can't stand behind or give any validity to an untestable hypothesis

Get the fuck off my /sci/

>>3229020
Read >>3229013

I agree.
A pink unicorn probly has fucked my ass.

I DON'T BELIEVE IN ATHEISM

>>3229013
>Anything is possible.
Not the impossible.

>>3229020
Or that your mother truly loved you. Christ, you guys need to pick factual unknowables instead of always going to crazy down.

>>3229013
No, it is not just as likely, because there is no proof of a pink unicorn shitting out the universe.
There is proof, however, of the Big Bang, making it more likely to be the origin of the universe.

But how about this: you write a book about how a pink unicorn shat out the universe, go around telling everybody that it's the truth and to have faith, and build up a congregation. That's how religions start. With stories that people pull out of their asses and convince the idiotic masses are true.

>implying religion is not crazy town

>>3229027
No because human impossibility is non testable.
You have to specify the universe and which particular human logic box were working with. We also need a way for everyone to connect to the same logic box before we get anything more than a inference fest.

You suck at this game. I have never lost a debate in my life.

Dammit, if we're going to abandon burden of proof, and all logic, and the fact of knowing anything, then please do that next time you have a disease, say you don't want to try the medicine because "everything is unknowable" your using philosophic bullshit to justify your agnosticism and burden of proof attacks, but there not viable theories to go by in the real world, you are the cancer of /sci/

>>3229035
>because there is no proof of a pink unicorn shitting out the universe.
There is proof, however, of the Big Bang

And guess what?
Im telling you right now that, because the Big bang has proof, that it DIDNT happen.

And Im also telling you that because we have no proof of pink unicorns creating the universe that they DID based off the sole fact that there is no evidence.


Inb4 you call me insane.

You think your logic is correct by default because you are a subhuman. A primitive monkey.

>>3229044
I wasn't talking about human possibility.

"Anything is possible" is a self-contradicting statement, don't need any proofs or arguments for it.

>>3229050
2/10, the trolling was too obvious.

>>3229055
>Anything is possible

no, that sounds perfectly ok to me.
as long as you include in that "everything isnt possible" inside the definition.

>>3229068
Then it's just a tautology that means nothing.

>>3229049
how bout we meet in the middle and agree that this is a useful argument and no one wins.

except the french:
>>3228295

>>3228980
Then what are people who lack a belief?

Christ, this is not that fucking hard.
Can something be true, not true, or neither? No, they can only be true or not true. True describes things which are only 100% true, while not true describes things which are 99% to 0% true.
Something is either "something" or "Not something."


Thus, there are only two options:

You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.

Prefix: a- : Greek: no, absence of, without, lack of, not
Not a theist = absence of theism
Not a theist = without theism
Not a theist = lack of theism
Not a theist = not a theist

Not a theist = Atheist

Therefore:

Atheist = without god/lack of god/no god/absence of god.

You either know something or you don't know something.You either know something or you don't know something.You either know something or you don't know something.You either know something or you don't know something.You either know something or you don't know something.You either know something or you don't know something.You either know something or you don't know something.

Gnostic == "Yes, i know for sure"
Agnostic == "Nope, not quite certain"

I can ask you "Do you believe in a god,"
But then i can ask you "Does god exist?"

If you're agnostic, the answer to the first one is "No." and the answer to the second is "I don't know for sure."

That makes you an:

Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic Atheist
Agnostic Atheist


I'm pretty sure I just got trolled hard. :|

sage vs reported

>>3229077
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.
You are either a theist, or you're not a theist.


>2011

Have you really convinced yourself this?

I hate living in this world. ;_;

>>3229090
Then kill yourself.

>>3229077
>2011
>still using dichotomies

inb4 (or after) butthurt dawkins teens pretend agnosticism is part of atheism.

we dont want anything to do with you disgusting faggots.

>>3229077
If you asked me this question
"Do you believe in a god?"

I would blatantly say I dont know.
You have autism and you REQUIRE a yes or no.
You are the worst type of people.

HurrRRR
True or false are the only things!!! XDDDD

>>3229097
>implying dichotomies doesn't exist

>>3229102

>implying only dichotomies exist.

>>3229100
How can you not know what you believe in?

>>3229114
>How can you not know what you believe in?

Because I dont have autism.
I dont feel the urge to sort every thought to match a certain set of logic that someone invented.

>>3229107
>>3229102
>implying there are only two options

>>3229097
It's a true dichotomy, though. Something is either a cat, or it's not a cat. It can be a dog, (not a cat), it can be a spaceship (not a cat), it can be a cat (cat), or it can be a black hole (also not a cat).

The whole stupid "Theist, Agnostic, Atheist" spectrum idea is like saying there are "Cats, dogs, and not cats," but what you fuckers don't realize is that "dogs" are already "not cats."

You can be a muslim (theist), you can be a christian (theist), you can be a non-denominational god believer (theist), or you can be a nihilist (typically not a theist), a humanist (not a theist), a Buddhist (not a theist), or someone who suspends only belief in god (not a thiest).

You would describe the first half as being "theists" and the second half as being "atheists"

>>3229116
So you just ignore the question?

>>3229077
This

Saging with the power of 1000 suns

>>3229117
It depends on how you split your x-chotomy, dumbass.
The only way to get a true-dichotomy is to say that something is "X" or "not X"

FUCKING LEARN 2 LOGIC OPERATORS:

x (or) ~x = 1 (true dichotomy)

x (or) y = ??? (false dichotomy, depends on y, you may have overlooked ~x and/or ~y)

>>3229122
>Something is either a cat, or it's not a cat.

Wrong.
Thats what your mommy taught you.
First of all the definition of a cat is EXTREMELY subjective with each instance having giant fluctuations. But we wont get into that.

So im going to narrow down your argument into "The cat exists or it doesn't exist"

That makes 0 sense to me. Why cant it double exist? Why cant it negative exist for existing. Why cant it NOT exist because it exists?

Its because your mom taught you this.

Its 2011.
Ok.
Atheists are mass murderers.
Move on.

>>3229100
I didn't ask whether you know, you fucking coon, I asked if you believe.

>>3229116
>Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior.
Actually, it looks like you do have autism.

>>3229116
You can justify it to yourself however you want, but not knowing what you believe just means that you're too lazy/stupid to pick a side.
Saying that you can't know for sure whether or not a god exists makes sense.
Saying that you don't believe either way is just idiotic. You can't have no belief at all about something, you either lean one way or the other. And calling people who know what they believe autistic is just immature.

>>3229122

Just curious, how would you classify the following sets of beliefs:

Believe God does exist
Believe God doesn't exist
Not believe God does exist
Not believe God doesn't exist
Not believe God does exist AND Not believe God doesn't exist.

What do you think?

>>3229130
same butthurt atheist dawkins fag

the idea of agnosticism existed (and still exists in every dictionary and encyclopedia) long before dawkins came up with his "revised new edition" that theyre the same as atheists that butthurt atheist teens repeat like an unquestionable gospel. no one is falling for it. atheists are disgusting depressed losers and no one likes them.

>>3229141
What...

I never said anything about existence of a a specific cats. I said only that when we classify things (which is what we're arguing about), we can classify them as cats, or not cats.

I dare you. I FUCKING DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU MOTHERFUCKER, SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING WHICH IS BOTH NOT A CAT, AND NOT NOT A CAT.

(PS: not a cat, and not not a cat reduces to cat and not a cat. Show me an example of something which is /both/ a cat, and /not/ a cat that doesn't involve schrodinger.)

>>3229141
None of what you just said has any value to anyone in this world, actualy I think somewhere, someone in the world just decreased in intelligence because of how mind-numbingly stupid that statement was

tldr: Everyone except Jennie, mcfucking kill yourself

>>3229141
>Why cant it double exist?
That is the same as existing.
>Why cant it negative exist for existing.
>Why cant it NOT exist because it exists?
Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves

>>3229155
AD HOMENIUM WITH THE POWER OF 1000 SUNS

>>3229157
This creature right here.
Shes making a little cat scratch so shes a cat.
You can define a cat however you want.
If you want to follow the "miridium dictionary" or whatever its called. Then you are automatically falling into a "Mass appeal fallacy". Because you are believing the most popular definition.

>>3229158

Keep believing what your mommy tells you.
Let me know when you think past playing with rocks.

>>3229140
>is not nearly as irrational as I would expect, but is clearly less rational as ought to be, but obviously has been subjective in his operative understanding of what things, definitions and logic is axiomatically, which means that he is or is not, something of an enigma which must be carefully monitored incase, perchance, he stumbles upon what is, is.

>>3229153
Just curious, how would you classify the following sets of beliefs:

Believe God does exist: Theist
Believe God doesn't exist: Antitheist/theist or Semi-gnostic theist or "strong" atheist.
Not believe God does exist: Atheist
Not believe God doesn't exist: Anti-atheist theist, strong theist, etc.
Not believe God does exist AND Not believe God doesn't exist: Full retard

I'll add a few for you:

Isn't convinced by a belief in god, but doesn't claim to know for sure: Agnostic atheist / "weak" atheist
Isn't convinced, but claims to know that god doesn't exist: gnostic atheist / "very strong" atheist

Really the four that matter are:

Gnostic theist: does know, does believe,
Agnostic theist: doesn't know, still believes,
Gnostic Atheist: does know, doesn't believe,
Agnostic Atheist: doesn't know, doesn't believe

>>3229168
Saying "believe what your mommy tells you" and not combating a logical argument just makes you look like a fucking idiot

>>3229168
>This creature right here.
>Shes making a little cat scratch so shes a cat.

You proved she's a cat, and proved his point.

>>3229168
Have you gone full retard? A "cat" is anything that can interbreed with any feline and produce fertile offspring. More specifically, any species who is a member of the genus "feline"

>>3229174
>Not believe God does exist AND Not believe God doesn't exist: Full retard


Its "Full retard" why?
Because it doesn't correspond with your way of thinking?

Shoot, If you can dismiss logic like that then I can just say that your true and false are dismissed.


You can now only not believe and believe at the same time. Because I said so.

>>3229174
This is the only tripfag who is saving /sci/

Everyone else in this thread should've been killed by evolution a long time ago

>>3229182
It's full retard because its a grammatical misfire, like saying "this sentence is false"

It has no value, it is illogical

>>3229182
>Its "Full retard" why?
Because the two statements contradict each other.

"Not believe God doesn't exist"
Is equivalent to "Believe God does exist"

>>3229179
So, if I call you a cat, are you willing to disprove me?

>>3229182
No, it's because you can't both believe in a god and not believe in a god at the same time. It's like being 100% a cat and being not 100% a cat at the same time.

You can't be a theist and not believe in a god like you can't be a driver's licensee and not have a license/been issued a license.

>>3229184
>Everyone else in this thread should've been killed by evolution a long time ago

Everyone take a GOOD look at this.

This is the ignorant atheist I HATE.

Just as bad as the mass genocide starters.

The WORST type of person PERIOD.

This is why I prefer christians.

>>3229182
If you, honestly, can't comprehend how it's fullretard.bin, then there is no helping you.

>Agnosticism vs Atheism

Oh for fucks sake this is not an EITHER/OR

>>3228860
>>3228860
>>3228860
>>3228860
>>3228860
>>3228860
This a million times

>>3229197
>No, it's because you can't both believe in a god and not believe in a god at the same time.

Why?

Because you said so?

What if I say "You can only not believe and believe"

You are automatically under a Mass Appeal Logical fallacy if you favor one set of logic over another.

How many times do I need to say that?

>>3229195
No, also said person would not have to disprove you, because you make the claim, so the burden of proof lies on you, that is what that means, you don't spend all day disproving infinite numbers of false claims, because that is not how logic works

>>3229206
There's only one set of logic, retard.

>>3229199
How are atheist, by hating illogical people, as bad as mass murderers? There's a logical leap I would like to see

Also, religion has mass murdered people... not lack of religion...

>>3229208
>There's only one set of logic

O really?

What if evolution gave us a different set of logic?
Would you believe that one exclusively too?

>>3229206
>im 12 and i logical fallacy

That's not how that is used, your using it to say that 2 + 2 =/= 4 because that's what everyone else thinks, he's not appealing to it, simply stating a premise based on sound logic

>>3229211
>by hating illogical people

Because you are hating "illogical people"
Those people are only illogical in your opinion.

THIS IS EXACTLY LIKE EVERY GENOCIDE EVER.

You are the SCUM of the EARTH

>>3229206
You cannot believe that god or gods exist and also, at the SAME TIME, believe that no gods exist. Not even people with multiple personality disorder can do this: they switch personalities first.

You cannot be both a cat an not a cat at the same time.
You cannot have both your cake, and eat it too.
You cannot go to the DMV and go to a place that is not the DMV at the same time.
You cannot be enrolled in MIT and not enrolled in MIT at the same time.
You cannot be X and not ~X at the same time.

Like i said, PICK UP A FUCKING LOGIC BOOK, HERE IT IS WITH LOGICAL OPERATORS:

X (and) ~X =0; all the damn time, no exceptions.

/gettingtrollednow

>>3229212
>What if evolution gave us a different set of logic?

not the guy your replying to but....

I dont think it works like that bro, not at all.

>>3229212
>What if evolution gave us a different set of logic?
It couldn't.
Logic is universal and objective, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be logic.

>>3229216
They are illogical in everyone's opinion? And if I am not taking any action against them, then how am I morally tainted in any way

LOL RELIGION ON /SCI/ WHAT A GOOD IDEA LOLOLOL
BAMP

petty fools, i am the one true god, and you can't prove me wrong.

everyone'sgettingtrolled.jpg

>>3229227
this

>>3229220
>axiomatic
>circular argumentation
>forgets that computers aren't people
>will never know what love means

>>3229220
>Logic is universal and objective, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be logic.

Ya?
Where on the universe is it written that true and false are the only answers. Hmmm?

It doesnt. Im 100% sure this logic is a human agreement that most people fall under by choice.

>>3229174
>>3229182
>>3229191
>>3229193

Ok here's the problem. Jennie doesn't understand how belief works. The statement:

Not believe God does exist AND Not believe God doesn't exist.

Is not a contradiction because I do not posit anything. I could put absolutely crazy shit into a (Not believe) statement and it would be perfectly fine because it could always be assumed that I don't know the answer. If instead I said:

Believes God does exist AND Believes God doesn't exist

Then I would have a contradiction because I have two conflicting beliefs.

>>3229232
>logic isn't written in the universe
>if something isn't written on it it's not true

Honestly, please kill yourself, please

>>3229207
I'm not allowed to prove it based on the definition, it would be against the law. Also, gross.

>>3229239
Nothing you said makes any sense

>>3229231
Yes, its axiomatic, deal with it.

>>3229232
First principles.

>>3229237
>Then I would have a contradiction because I have two conflicting beliefs.

LOL.

You atheists have your heads so far up your own asses its ridiculous.

"This contradicts this because this."

YOU CANT DO THAT.
I have explained in many posts already.

>>3229242
You sir are also a cat. May I try to prove it by forcing you to copulate with another feline?

>>3229195
A gene analysis of a human and a cat would show that they would be incompatible for reproduction.
No sex necessary, although, the test wouldn't be necessary either, because no fucking shit a human and a cat can't breed.

>>3229237
>Not believe God does exist AND Not believe God doesn't exist.
and
>Believes God does exist AND Believes God doesn't exist
are logically equivalent, and thus self-contradicting.

>>3229237
>Not believe God does exist AND Not believe God doesn't exist.

We can break it down and define what each of these mean:
Not believe god does exist: atheist
Not believe god doesn't exist: Not an anti-theist

Anti-theism is under the subcatagory of "atheism," because they don't believe a god exists. It is possible to be an athiest and not an anti-theist, therefore:
>Athiest AND Atheist

So i'll change my definition from full retard to "just an atheist"

you have a point; most atheists i know are pompous and arrogant. i just wanna bump this post for a point well communicated. (assumptions of me=religious because of this statement=bullshit.

>>3229252
>>3229249
>>3229237
I've come to the conclusion that it's not a contradiction, please see:
>>3229254

>>3229251
I want emprical evidence. I don't trust correlations.

>>3229255
Same thing with atheism.

assumptions of me=atheist because of this statement=bullshit.

>>3229259
A DNA comparison is empirical evidence.

DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/ DOES NOT BELONG ON /SCI/

>>3229262
empirical evidence makes 0 sense.
unless you are an atheist.

>>3229265
Either does belong on /sci/, or does not belong on /sci/, there is no inbetween.

>>3229255
I'm an atheist, and I know I'm arrogant about it. Also, idgaf.
I base my beliefs on logic and common sense, not a bunch of absolutely ridiculous stories that were written thousands of years ago and which have not a single shred of evidence to support them.
Why shouldn't I be arrogant about that?
Arrogance is "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities." My abilities to rationalize things and use critical thinking clearly vastly outpace those of religious people, and I'm sure that my opinion of that is exaggerated. But, like I said, I don't care.

>>3229266
Maybe just means "I don't know"


This belongs on /sci/ = X
This doesn't belong on /sci/ = -X
Maybe this should be on /sci/ just means I don't know if it should or not = ???

>>3229262
No it's not. It's correlative evidence. Emprical evidence is you fucking a cat and me observing no baby kittens coming out.

Sex is not a dichotomie, species are not dichotomies.

Please, reread the entire chain of responses before you up and become retarded.

>>3229252

>nope.avi
once again, it could always be assumed that I don't know the answer. As long as it doesn't conflict with a belief I have, I could put whatever i wanted into a "Not-belief" statement, even if it was illogical.

>>3229254

Yes, atheism is an intrinsic quality of the statement:
"Not believe God does exist AND Not believe God doesn't exist"

But it takes it one step further.

>>3229258
How do you get
"Not believe God doesn't exist."
to "not anti-theist"?

"God doesn't exist" = X
"Not believe" is the operator negating X.

X in this case has the value false, because he is stated to not exist.
NOT(false) is therefor true.

"Not believe god does exist"
Here X is true, but we are still using the same operator, thus
NOT(true) evaluates to false.

So the statement becomes:

"True AND False"

Which is a contradiction.

>>3229275
This might belong on /sci/ if properly discussed, if not properly discussed then it likely does not belong on /sci/.

Define properly.

>>3229266
You are the one who said you wanted empirical evidence.

>>3229274
>I base my beliefs on logic and common sense, not a bunch of absolutely ridiculous stories

This is everything thats wrong with atheists.
You are too weak to believe in anything else.
You always have 2 options.
Either I believe in these stories or I believe in my own logic because im too lazy to think of anything else.

Thats all I hear when you say that.

>>3229282
>once again, it could always be assumed that I don't know the answer. As long as it doesn't conflict with a belief I have, I could put whatever i wanted into a "Not-belief" statement, even if it was illogical.
What you know doesn't matter, the logical evaluations of the statements lead to self-contradiction.

>>3229284
I'm not making an argument either way, just proving a point

PHILOSOPHIC BURDEN OF PROOF ALL UP IN THIS BITCH

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

>>3229283
no, "Beleive god doesn't exist" is different from "not believe god does exist"
The first one is someone who believes there is not god, while the second is someone who doesn't hold a belief in a god.

That's why
Not (believe God doesn't exist.)
is Not (anti-theist)

You /can/ "not believe in a god" (lack of belief)and ALSO "/not/ belive god doesn't exist." (lack of disbelief)

so the statment becomes: >Lack of belief and lack of disbelief.
Which is just a run-of-the-mill atheist

>>3229277
>No it's not. It's correlative evidence.
Don't go full retard, bro.

The experiment is the comparison of the DNA.
The result is either a match, nor not a match. Which would be empirical evidence for him not being a cat.

YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT
YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT
YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT
YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT
YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT
YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT
YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT
YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT
YOU ARE EITHER A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT OR YOU ARE NOT A CAT WHO CAN SEXUALLY REPRODUCE WITH A CAT

>>3229289
>Either I believe in these stories or I believe in my own logic because im too lazy to think of anything else.

>go by logic because I'm too lazy to think
>go by logic = lazy

If anyone is lazy, it's the people going with the stories, I'm getting trolled, there's literally no way on earth is this fucking stupid, and it's not a "LOLOLOLOL I TROLL YOU" it's an "I'm fucking stupid an uneducated so I'm going to play it off as a troll"

YES I MAD

>>3229297
Nope.

I can reproduce with cats.

And I can NOT reproduce with cats.

Deal with it.

So OP is an atheist, case closed.

>>3229297
THERE IS NO DEBATING THIS

>>3229304
/thread

>>3229295
>The first one is someone who believes there is not god, while the second is someone who doesn't hold a belief in a god.
No, the second statement is
"Not believe God does NOT exist"
Which is to say, does not hold a belief in a non-god. (Which IS the logical equivalence of belief in a god)

>>3229296
No, the experiment as defined:

>>3229179

A CAT INTERBREEDS WITH OTHER CATS. It's not defined as 'of similar DNA'

Now are you going to let me test whether you are a Cat or not? After all, this is science, and I have put forth a testable hypothesis.
>.3229179>>3229195 ▲ ▼ [ ! ]

>>3229303
NO YOU CAN'T REPRODUCE WITH CATS, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT DO THAT, FUCKING TRY IT, THEN POST THE OFFSPRING ON HERE FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

>>3229291

If you choose to ignore the knowledge and belief are really hard to separate. Something unknowable can't be believed. Believing something is to have some information, regardless of its correctness, about something. No knowledge, no belief.

>>3229310
>A CAT INTERBREEDS WITH OTHER CATS. It's not defined as 'of similar DNA'
That's exactly how "being able to interbreed" is defined.

>>3229301
Every atheist is lazy as fuck.

And they are arrogant.

They just believe whatever is put in front of them.

>>3229311
maybe he's talking about making a model of himself out of cats?

this thread is so gay it's off the charts, why couldn't you faggots start this shit on >>>/soc/ or >>>/adv/ where it fucking belongs.

>>3229315
False, without knowledge, there can still be belief, I could believe that there is a galaxy based entirely of candy and have no knowledge of it

yourargumentisfuckingretarded.jpg

>>3229315
I believe you too are a Cat. Will you let me test this hypothesis?

>>3229321
Oh god what.

>>3229315
>Something unknowable can't be believed.

Because you said so?
Right?

>>3229320
No, interbreeding is an action. DNA is not an action, it's a correlation of species.

If you are this ignorant of what DNA and interbreeding are, you definitely are a Cat and I can see why you do not want to run this test.

>>3229321
irony troll? or are you being serious?

>>3229321
>Non-belief
>believe whatever is but in front of them

That's like saying pacifist are the most dangerous war criminals, it's completely counter to the definition

>>3229328
>No, interbreeding is an action. DNA is not an action, it's a correlation of species.
The action is the combining of the DNA retard.
That you can easily test without the physical act of sex.

>>3229329
when he said atheist, he meant anyone who holds a dogmatic belief and are intellectually stuck in the chinese room.

>>3229329
Im completely serious.

Atheists get born in this world and they see all this bullshit so they assume THIS IS IT! YUP! EVERYTHING RIGHT HERE!

There is NO/0/NADA REASON to believe in human logic. Give me a SINGLE reason.

There is Absolutely NO reason to.

Atheists do.
That makes me sick.

>>3229323
>>3229326

Hoo boy, here come the strawmen.

If you were to invent the idea that a magical unicorn existed in your backyard and believed it, then you would know that magical unicorn, even if it was false.

No seriously though. Try believing in something that you can't know. It doesn't make any sense. The moment you think of it, you know it.

>>3229334
Nope. Need to test it with interbreeding. Otherwise it's not empirical and is merely correlations.

Otherwise, please cite your sources that have shown empirically that you are not a cat.

>>3229321
I'm going to allow myself to get trolled.

Atheists are lazy because they agree with whatever is put in front of them.
Religious people are told what to believe by their parents, told how to act by their holy texts, and think that talking to their god(s) is an adequate substitution for action.
How does that make them different from "lazy atheists who just believe whatever is put in front of them"?
There is no actual thought or action required to be religious, other than worship, and most are indoctrinated into it by family members.

>>3229339
Thank you for instantly knowing the mind of another human being, shall we simply worship you instead?

>>3229328
And I should add the fact that just letting two individuals have sex is not even guarantee for successful reproduction, so it would be a bad test.

>>3229347
Thats, coo, whatev.

>>3229344
See:
>>3229348

It's the act of the DNA combination you want to test, having sex is in fact in the way of the test.

>>3229348
Well we can have you do it like 1000 times with different types of cats.

We really need to make sure of these things. Can't just jump to conclusions.

>3229336
>3229336
>3229336
>3229336
>3229336
>3229336
>3229336

>>3229351
>We really need to make sure of these things. Can't just jump to conclusions.
That's why we'll do a comparative DNA study, it gets rid of any redundant factors.

There is not one agreed upon definition of atheism. It would be less ambiguous to specify with an agnostic or gnostic prefix.

/thread

Also there in no reason to believe that the universe is the center of everything.

Or believe that the universe even exists.
Theres simply no reason to believe that.
Theres no backing here.
Human logic says that it exists ,,,, so it exists...

Ya, no.

>>3229342
so being sat in front of a bible and not questioning it at all is more reasonable than reading many books, questioning them all and coming up with your own beliefs? or being able to discern fact from fiction

please don't have children, they will suffer from your inability to teach them how to reason.

and now, to continue posting until this thread hits the post limit

posting

>>3228715

ideas give the God concept too much credit and assume (for no reason) that it is coherent and able to exist or not exist...

it is so malformed and ill-conceived that it doesn't make sense to ask someone 'does God exist?'
because God is a meaningless concept divorced from reality...you might as well ask 'does NXONS exist?'

Alright. We won't test if all of you are cats. We realize that you don't want to have sex with cats. Whatever fears you have of being identified as cats, or possibly producing cat offspring, we can understand that.

But as far as we can tell, you are cats. You are the ones not letting us determine specifically, whether you are or are not cats.

So we'll just take it as a matter of faith, that you are cats. We could determine, once and for all, but your selfishness in allowing us knowledge is reckless.

We know you are cats, now just accept it and move on. In the end, whether you interbreed with cats or not, it's your decision and yours allow to prove.

I will be the bigger man here, and accept, with no evidence to the contrary, that you are cats.

>>3229367
You exists, so the universe necessarily exists as well (since its defined as the set of all things that exist).
So even if your brain is the only thing that exist and the world is just a dream, the universe would just be the set with you in it.

>>3229374

ideas = agnostics

lol brain fart

>>3229367
The universe is not the center of everything. The universe IS everything, as far as we know.
Also, there is no center of the universe. It's like saying "where is the center of the surface of a sphere?" There is no center.
But the universe isn't 3D like a sphere, it has at least 4 dimensions.

>>3229342
>There is NO/0/NADA REASON to believe in human logic. Give me a SINGLE reason.
>There is Absolutely NO reason to.

You do realize that you're using logic with those statements, right?

>>3229368
Believing the bible and believing human science are equally credible.

Both are equally likely. They are both equally likely to every other possible theory too.

Neither have a defined statistic of probability. So you have to keep an open mind to both. Which leads to agnosticism. I dont reject ANY particular theory.
Thats RIDICULOUS.

posting again

>>3228715
Do you dismiss the idea of unicorns, and goblins, and fairies? Would you say offhand that you don't know, or would you say that they don't exist?

So, you probably dismiss the idea of unicorns and goblins and fairies based upon the evidence. Thus one would dismiss most of the popular incarnations of the god hypothesis based upon the evidence. The rest of them are too ill-defined or not interfering enough to dismiss, and thus there's no reason to have positive belief for, or positive belief against, them.

I positively believe that the really interfering gods do not exist based upon the evidence, and I am a militant agnostic about the rest - I don't know, and you don't know either. If you claim to know, then you are wrong.

That is, I am the common atheist. Ala Dawkins atheist.

>>3228715

>we can neither disprove or prove god's existence with our current understanding of the universe

Well there you go OP, if that's what you think then you're an agnostic. Problem solved.

>>3229383
Too obvious now bro.
0/10

>>3229387
So, if you agree with me, should you use the word atheist or agnostic? I don't know. I use atheist because that seems to be the more correct English usage. Everyone's unsure if unicorns exist, but the default position is no because we've looked for a really long time and never found them. Equivalently for miracles - miracles likely do not exist.

Also, most people belief in non-deist gods. That is, most incarnations of the god hypothesis is not some nebulous god, but a very particular interfering one.

For those reasons, I default to the language of positive belief against, aka atheist, instead of the more indecisive and lack of knowledge position of agnosticism.

>>3229366
>>3229366
>>3229366
This

>>3229389
>Too obvious now bro. 0/10


Wat.

Every atheist thinks im a troll.
Im not.

I think you are all retards with your dicks up your own ass.

>>3229367
We know that the universe exists because that is the name we have chosen to give to all of the planets, stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc that we can see.
It doesn't necessarily have to be called "universe," but we can observe everything around us and we choose to call the whole of it "the universe." It wasn't an idea humans made up, it was a name and definition given to what we could see in the night sky.

>>3229395
>>3229366
Oh god no. No serious scholar ever uses the term "agnostic atheist" or "gnostic theist". None of the books for god, or against god, ever use that terminology. It's just some asshats using etymology to try to give new meanings to words, and it hasn't caught on it. It's an abuse of the language, and in the case of Huxley and agnosticism, a direct contradiction to the original meaning of the coiner.

Please knock this shit off.

>>3229396
You use a computer.
You go to doctors.
You pump gas into your car.
You drink water.
You eat food.

Your actions prove you take science more seriously than fairy tales.

>>3229395
samefag detected. the definition of agnostic has been agreed upon since the beginning of time, just because your hero dawkins decided to try and change it doesnt mean its 'not agreed upon'

>>3229383
You don't reject any theory? This is a lie. You reject plenty of theories out of hand, all day long. Presumably you get up in the morning to do something. That is, you reject out of hand the idea that people will come into your room and shoot you unless you do 17 jumping jacks before trying to leave the room. You dismiss ideas all the time as ludicrous.

>>3229402
>We know that the universe exists
>we can observe everything around us

Why does observing something lead to existence?
Because you said so?

Or some other guy on wikipedia said so?

>>3229409
I have no clue what the hell you're talking about - Dawkins never tried to change the definition as such. In some ways, I'm a Dawkins fanboy, and it pisses me off whenever some idiot says "agnostic atheist" or some shit.

>>3229383
there's that lack of reasoning i was talking about

just me posting again until this gets deleted or hits the limit yay

>>3229412
Ya in order to cope with this wizardry you guys call "life". Im forced to reject things. If I thought someone was gonna come kill me id have to get ready with a gun etc.

>>3229414
>Why does observing something lead to existence?
Because it's self-evident.

but I dont think its impossible for someone to come kill me

>>3229417
dawkins is the one who started that whole trend of pretending "agnostic atheist" "gnostic theist" bullshit has any validity at all, and the teenagers who worship him just spread it around on reddit

its pathetic and obvious to anyone who isnt 14. atheists are robots.

>>3229430
No atheist thinks it's impossible for a god to exist. The idea that there is such an atheist is a straw man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

>>3229414
How would it be possible to observe something that doesn't exist?
Well, there are hallucinations, I guess. Although it's highly unlikely that everyone in the history of the world has had the same hallucination every night.

>>3229434
I'm really going to need a citation here. I've never heard of this before, and I've read The God Delusion. Perhaps I just forgot about it? You mean I have his stupid ass to thank for this nonsense? Again, citation please.

>>3229428
>In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.

You are saying you understand a planet in the sky without proof?

>>3229434
>The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[19] predates atheism in English, being first found as early as 1566,[20] and again in 1571.[21]
Don't think Dawkins is 445 years old.

>>3229440
just look on youtube hes been promoting that nonsense line for ages, hes the one that made it popular, because hes atheist teenager followers started repeating it like gospel

how can there be a citation for this? its just observation of trends, its not going to have a wikipedia entry

>>3229447
We're talking about the term "agnostic atheist", not "atheist". "agnostic / gnostic + atheist + theist" is what's bullshit. That other anon claimed Dawkins started the 4 quandrant bullshit trend. I want sources of that.

>>3229442
>You are saying you understand a planet in the sky without proof?
No, I'm saying an observed object must necessarily exists, because if it didn't, there would be nothing to observe.

>>3229451
Because I've watched most of the youtube videos of Dawkins, and he has never said that to my recollection. I do think you're mistaken.

>>3229453
>No, I'm saying an observed object must necessarily exists, because if it didn't, there would be nothing to observe.

You are saying something must exist because ________. Nope. Doesn't work that way. You can infer it exists though.

>>3229455
im not mistaken, dawkins makes it an effort to repeat that bullshit line every single time he comes across mention of agnosticism because he wants to annex agnostics onto the atheist side by word trickery

>>3229405
>serious scholar
Who really gives a shit? The prefixes make clear one's beliefs. The current definitions of atheism are very different.

There is no middle ground with the idea of God. He either is ultimate reality or nothing exists, however nothing doesn't exist, therefore God exists.

ex)
If logic must be described in terms of non-logic, then logic is no longer objective.
If logic is not objective then it is subjective.
If logic is subjective then it is illusion in an objective sense.
Therefore logic is illusion. This can be done with any attribute needed to properly describe the current reality we experience. There can not be an infinite regress of reason as this would entail an unattainable justification of reason, which denounces reason in terms of itself, reason for reason.

If God is the infinite objective standard of all things (morality, knowledge, power, logic, being, etc.), and
This God must be personal, as a libertarian free will (the only one that can or does exist by definition of what libertarian free will is)by which that will was exercised in creation (without will, nothing would be set into motion), a finite slice of thought in the infinite mind of God, and
This God being the objective standard hates that which is not Himself, and loves that which is like Himself,
Then there is no middle ground on the issue of loving God as God (If you love me you will follow my commandments), since God loves himself and those who do not love God are not like God as they do not love God, then they face God's wrath. Hence there is no middle ground, if this God exists, even though agnosticism fails to see this, it has in essence already chosen.

>>3229462
No. It doesn't. I still don't know what the hell "agnostic atheist" means compared to "agnostic theist". It means that they guessed one, but don't know? That's retarded. The terms are meaningless. Either you think there is a god, or you think that there is no god, or you're undecided / don't know.

>>3229461
Again, I don't recall seeing this ever. Do you have any example, any link, of where he did this?

>>3229467
i dont because i was not prepared for our encounter ;)

i suspect if you spend a lot of time sifting through videos of him, youre sure to find him bringing up that shitty 'paradigm' when someone brings up agnosticism

good luck on your quest, i promise im telling the truth so if youre truly interested, then take some time looking through his vids, im going to sleep

>>3229458
No, this was the question I answered:
>Why does observing something lead to existence?
Observing implies existence. Anything you observe must necessarily exists (doesn't necessarily tell you the true nature of the object, but the fact of its existence is indisputable)

>>3229465
Try reading the thread next time.
>>3228860

>>3229461
Sorry, i'm not sure that dawkins had anything to do with coining this quad-chotomy. The first person i heard it from was Matt Dilhunty, in fact, and i've known dawkins much longer than Dilhunty.

>>3229464
>There is no middle ground with the idea of God. He either is ultimate reality or nothing exists, however nothing doesn't exist, therefore God exists.
Sup William Lane Craig.

>>3229478
>>3228860
I reject your usage of terms are not the usage in the culture at large, and because they bring up false dichotomies, and because they embed straw men, and because it's contradictory to the inventor of at least one of the terms - agnosticism and Huxley.

>>3229475
>Anything you observe must necessarily exists.

Im not too keen with the logistics of that word "necessarily" but you are wrong.

You cant say "I observe so it exists". Or else you would have to except every schizophrenic illusion as real. And you would have to accept the people who claimed they saw god. Or you can only believe in your own brain which would make you a solipsist

I stopped calling myself an agnostic after realizing how much of an arrogant douchebag most of them are.

>>3229464
Can someone simplify this for me?
I cant really understand reverse reverse reverse logic too well. But by the first sentence it seems pretty legit.

>>3229487
You can reject anything you want. You can reject the term "scientist" and go around claiming that people can't call themselves scientists for all I care. That doesn't mean that the terms don't exist and people don't use them.

>>3229488
>You cant say "I observe so it exists". Or else you would have to except every schizophrenic illusion as real. And you would have to accept the people who claimed they saw god. Or you can only believe in your own brain which would make you a solipsist

Please read my whole post:
>(doesn't necessarily tell you the true nature of the object, but the fact of its existence is indisputable)

So someone having an hallucination proves my point, they HAVE observed something, then we can debate the nature of it (was the actual reality, or can it be explained by misfiring brain activity), but the fact is that it wasn't NOTHING, it WAS something.

Show me how you can observe nothing (non-existence).

i'm an agnostic atheist. meaning i know the chances of there being a god are incredibly unlikely.

>>3229482
does it matter who you first heard it from?

1. that doesnt mean thats the first person who used it

2. that definitely doesnt mean thats the person who popularized it. no one knows who matt dilhunty is, atheist teens didnt start using this because "matt dilhunty" used it.

>>3229495
I try not parsing bullshit which attempts to mix true-by-fiat claims, such as logic, and true-by-evidence claims, aka scientific claims. Anyone who does so to such an extreme things that he's an awesome philosopher who's on to something, but in the end it's just a bunch of meaningless claims. That or easily falsifiable, false, claims.

>>3228715
>we can neither disprove or prove

So, we should accept the possibility of any bullshit we cannot disprove?

You fail hard at logic bro!

>>3229489
>I stopped calling myself an agnostic after realizing how much of an arrogant douchebag most of them are.

you shouldn't base your beliefs or lack thereof on whether some group of people are assholes are not. that has nothing to do with truth

>>3229487
You're either trolling or just a stupid tripwhore. There are such things as true dichotomies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy
Dichotomies are described as being nonoverlapping and exaustive.
If we use the "theist, agnostic, atheist" definition (which i crap :|), then it's not exaustive, and it's not nonoverlapping.

>>3229489
This is a militant atheist, naturally we already know about militant theists because you scream hysterically about them all day.

Where are the militant agnostics? Where are the people fighting blood tooth and nail for accepting the fact you don't know everything? It's kind of like liberty, no tyrant ever used liberty for their ideology, they prefer socialism and fascism because it means they don't have to pledge free speech or anything. Like liberty, agnosticism is an idea that actually has an impact on society and cannot be easily used as dogma and when it is used as dogma it is several orders of magnitude less destructive than other dogmas.

The only reason we're arrogant is because we became tired of the dunning-kruger effect, we both know our limitations and we know we're right.

>>3229501
I was making a physical example.

I can say that a giant turd exists in the sky. Not even an illusion. Something I totally made up.

If you are willing to say "I dont believe you" then you cant logically claim that your observations exist either.

>>3229484
I don't like William Lane Craig because of his molinism. He denies the libertarian free will of God. If William Lane Craig ever ended up debating a presuppositionalist then you would see the foundations of his theology collapse. If that happens he could no longer debate anyone as everyone would see how they could shoot holes in all his arguments, by attacking the basis by which they were founded upon.

William Lane Craig doesn't use the transcendental argument for God as his theology is not big enough for it. Not sure how a no middle ground argument could apply to him. He accepts middle ground and tries to show God exists through classical apologetic to them, which is were I disagree. I am like Kant in this regard, as I deny all classical proofs for God.

>>3228715
>agnosticism
>fails at basic reasoning

>>3229489
I'm an agnostic agnostic agnostic [... inifinite] agnostic.

Checkmate.

>>3229506
>So, we should accept the possibility of any bullshit we cannot disprove?

yes. we can accept such bullshit as 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance of being possible

welcome to extreme logic

>>3229506
>So, we should accept the possibility of any bullshit we cannot disprove?

Yes exactly.
I dont see whats wrong with that.
The only thing I can think of is some crazy OCD/autism by scientists who just dont like it.

>>3228715
There is no god.

\thread

>>3229508

I never stated that it changed my view on the possibility of the existence/non-existence of god(s). I just said that I stopped publicly calling myself an agnostic because they're all major pricks.

Read my post next time before being so buttmad.

>>3229514
>libertarian free will of god

please do explain

>>3229513
I don't know what you think I said. I meant to say that the terms "gnostic theist", "agnostic theist", "agnostic atheist", "gnostic theist" embed false dichotomies. Because that was a bad choice of words. I was trying to describe how these terms do a very bad job at actually classifying people and their beliefs. There is no one who believes in god who clearly identifies with "agnostic theist" vs "gnostic theist". Almost no one is going to admit that they believe in something and not have a good basis for that belief. The entire terms are just a bad categorization scheme.

The following categorization scheme is much better at actually grouping people by their beliefs: theist, deist, Huxley agnostic, ignorant / undecided, atheist.

>>3229506
>So, we should accept the possibility of any bullshit we cannot disprove?
No, we should not accept the possibility that god can be disproven and we should not accept the possibility that god's non-existence can be disproven.

This isn't difficult, and this is difficult to comprehend, then, well, maybe you should just accept your low intelligence and flip burgers instead of attempting to think, because you obviously can't do it properly and you will be happier not bothering to do so.

>>3229506
>So, we should accept the possibility of any bullshit we cannot disprove?
No, we should not accept the possibility that god can be disproven and we should not accept the possibility that god's non-existence can be disproven.

This isn't difficult, and if this is difficult to comprehend, then, well, maybe you should just accept your low intelligence and flip burgers instead of attempting to think, because you obviously can't do it properly and you will be happier not bothering to do so.

>>3229521
>>3229517

Do you accept that we live in the MATRIX? Is that a reasonable thing to do? Does it make sense to you? You can't disprove it, right?

LMFAO.
Please little children, go take a basic logic course and STFU.

>>3229531
No, No.
>So, we should accept the possibility of any bullshit we cannot disprove?

Thats exactly what EVERY human should do.

>>3229517
>>3229521
But that's just philosophical masturbation.
When we say things like "leprechauns doesn't exist", we do acknowledge the remote possibility of it being falsified, but we must draw the line somewhere and state it as a fact so we can cope with reality.
A true 100% agnostic couldn't take a single step because he would be shit scared that the electromagnetic weak and strong nuclear force would suddenly change and he would fall through the street.

>>3229521
>this is what self-proclaimed agnostics actually believe
>laughingwhores.jpg

Still believe in Santa Claus, eh?

>>3229532
>Please little children, go take a basic logic course and STFU.

14 yr old detected

>>3229540
Basically, this. When someone says in common parlance that they dismiss an idea, it really means that they dismiss it based upon the current evidence, and are willing to change their minds given new evidence.

It would be too unwieldy to hedge every single assertion with such qualifiers. Thus common parlance. Thus the common straw man that atheists deny the existence of gods beyond all doubt without exception.

>>3229512
>I can say that a giant turd exists in the sky. Not even an illusion. Something I totally made up.
If you thought something up, it does exist - as an idea in your mind, still proving my point.

To falsifies this, show me a case of an observations of a non-existing thing (protip, you can't because of the axiomatic statement).

>>3229540
>but we must draw the line somewhere and state it as a fact so we can cope with reality.

Ya if you're a complete RETARD.

Were discussing the absolute hardcore shit here.

Were not drawing lines.

I dont give a fuck about when people say shit like this

"Your point of view doesnt help society "

I dont care.
This is whats true. Im not just going to become a scientist because it helps.

>>3228715
You cannot prove or disprove tons of random bullshit OP, THAT DOESN'T FUCKIN MEAN YOU SHOULD ACCEPT ALL SORTS OF NONSENSE AS BEING POSSIBLE.

To reasonably accept the possibility of something, you need actual proof. IT IS NOT FUCKING ENOUGH THAT THERE IS NO CONTRADICTORY PROOF! YOU NEED POSITIVE PROOF TO VERIFY SHIT!

YOU FAIL HARD OP! YOU TROLLIN? RETARDED? (engineer?)

>>3229532
>Do you accept that we live in the MATRIX? Is that a reasonable thing to do? Does it make sense to you? You can't disprove it, right?

no i do not accept that we live in the matrix. but no i cant disprove it. but it seems to me the odds of us living in the matrix are so statistically Infinitesimal that it doesn't bear consideration. thats how pure logic works son. your simple minded world of black and white certainties is irrational

Also, when the fuck did agnostics start becoming more annoying than theists?

Sitting on the fence seems to be the new angsty emo teenage fad now.

>>3229551
>If you thought something up, it does exist

Well, this has devolved down into a definitional debate, as usual. I suppose it always was a definitional debate, considering the OP's question. I swear, I see more trolling / idiotic arguments over agnosticism vs atheism than I do of no-belief vs theist shit threads.

>>3229551
NO.

Lets say I actually didnt think of that turd. You just thought I thought it. It makes no fucking difference.

Im a human and I cant comprehend something that is just a universal non-existant. Thats a given.

What were we even talking about?

>>3229543
Out of all the people throwing insults you quote the one guy who tells someone to go learn something.

>>3229552
>This is whats true.
And what's the best method for determining this?
Science, bitch.

>>3229559
sorry but atheism will always and forever be the angsty emo religious affiliation. pic related

>>3229551
>>3229551

>>3229568
>averageagnostic.JPG

Yeah that seems pretty accurate.

>>3229551

>If you thought something up, it does exist

>>3229561
Yeah, an idea is a set of neurons in a particular configuration in your brain, deal with it.

>>3229551
>If you thought something up, it does exist - as an idea in your mind

Also once again.

You are saying something exists because of something else.

All I have to say is "No it doesnt"

>>3229574
There is a difference between the idea, the abstraction, in someone's head, the brain configuration, VS a state of the universe existing which fits the abstraction.

There is a difference between a basketball on my laptop, and me thinking about a basketball on my laptop.

You understand this distinction, and yet purposefully conflated the two meanings, just to be an asshat and a contrarian.

>>3228715
>>3228715
Most of the self-proclaimed christians I've met are self proclaimed assholes who don't really research the opinion of christanity

>fixed

>>A true 100% agnostic couldn't take a single step because he would be shit scared that the electromagnetic weak and strong nuclear force would suddenly change and he would fall through the street.

100% agnostic here. the odds of that happening are so incredibly small that i don't bother thinking about it. it's called probabilities. learn how they work

>>3229564
The original statement was that the universe might not exist.
And that is a self-contradicting statement.
I know with 100% certainty that I exists, since the universe is simple the set of all things that exists, it follows tautological that the universe exists.

Now, the act of knowing WHAT is true about an observed object is an entirely different thing, and is not what I've been talking about.
Observation directly implies existence, exactly WHAT that is doesn't matter and is beside the point.

>>3229526
Libertarian free will would be the concept of independent non-deterministic will. Any two independent human wills can/do limit each other, leading to contradiction. A human libertarian free-will would also be limited by experience. We have limited knowledge while God has an infinite pool of knowledge by which to make choices. We are limited in scope, what we wish for does not because reality. While what God wishes or wills for does become reality. The only limit of a God based libertarian free-will would be His own nature, while we are restricted by all external realities, there is no external reality by which to limit God, hence the only limit must be self limited by self through His own nature.

William Lane Craig argues that God limited His own will to give us an independent will. Before God did this though He "crunched the numbers" and created a world where the greatest number of people would freely get saved via His foreknowledge...

I would say it is not possible for God to be anything but God. God's sovereignty over all things is absolute and unchangeable. It is easy to poke holes in molinism though. If God's goal is to maximize saving independent wills and minimize those who cannot be saved, it is easy to imagine such a world where the ratio could be higher.

>>3229584
No, I'm the one who DOESN'T confuse the two meanings, everyone else seems to.

>>3229592
Ahhh yes.

>Observation directly implies existence

Why?

I can just as respectably say that observation proves that things dont exist. Or that they exist and they dont exist. etc etc etc infinity

>>3229591
Then by definition, you aren't 100% agnostic.

I doubt you're even 10%.

>>3229577
>You are saying something exists because of something else.
No, I'm not.
The "something else" is the something itself, if one of them is true, the other one is true as well. The technical term is biconditional logical connective.

>thread autosaging

Holy fuck, this thread actually got 300 replies. Why hasn't moot deleted this board yet?

>inb4 still saging even though thread autosages

>>3228715
>What is the better belief?

Atheism. There has never been any proof for the existance of any sort of "god". It is no reasonable, logical or scientific, to accept the possibility of something that lacks any proof.

STOP THINKING LIKE A FUCKING CHRISTIAN!

>>3229595
>Libertarian free will would be the concept of independent non-deterministic will.
Presumably you mean to imply that human will is not mechanical, that it does not follow the laws of physics.

Thus, you claim it is magic. Next will we be discussing goblins and fairies in the bushes?

>>3229600
>I can just as respectably say that observation proves that things dont exist.
You can say and define words however you want, but please prove it.

>>3229606
It's not our fault the threads don't get deleted, and the OP doesn't get perma banned. I've reported it already. There's a lot of good people on here, and a lot of trolls.

from what ive seen here something tells me you are all more "special" than relativity. snap.

>>3229600
>I can just as respectably say that observation proves that things dont exist.
That you can, but it would just be the inverse of what I said, and in effect the same, just different definitions.
>Or that they exist and they dont exist.
Not, that is a logical impossibility.

>>3229601
the odds of that happening are so incredibly small that i don't bother thinking about it.

see what i said there? i said the odds are so incredibly small. i didnt say it was impossible. still 100% agnostic. being 100% agnostic just means you think everythings possible, it doesnt mean you have to think everythings likely

Agnostic= don't know and can't prove either way
Gnostic = Know for sure one way or the other

Theist = believes in a diety
Atheist = doesn't believe in a diety

I think there should also be a third term here maybe called a sometimes-theist/sometimes-atheist or pure-agnostic. Because if you are agnostic and don't know for sure if there is a deity then you can flip-flop between believing and disbelieving – giving you the answer to the question “Do you believe in God?” I don't know.
It is possible to not care whether a deity exists or not. They don't have an opinion because they don't favorite one side over the other. They flip between the two with out ever reaching a conclusive decision, therefore they are neither aetheist nor theist, or more accurately they are both. The existence of a deity is so unimportant to them it is not even worth thinking abut long enough to pick a side. Not everything has to be black or white.

Also on the cat scenario where you can have a cat thats also not a cat. If I showed you a picture of a cat and asked you what it was you would probably reply “Thats a cat” But it is also not a cat, its just ink printed on some paper, or pixels on your screen. So it could be considered a cat that is not a cat.

>>3229605
You say, my eyes see this so it exists

First of all your eye has to be a true
Then the actual observed object has to be a true
Then the linking between them has to be a true
Then your brain has to be able to compute the correct answer

Then you have to ask yourself why you are using only true and false
Then you have to ask yourself why is the default answer true if the eye sees it

Then you have to ask why is the eye "seeing" property the default choice if you have an image being interpreted

Then you have to ask why should the ultimate result even achieve something

etc etc etc
that made no sense but it does

>>3229619
>see what i said there? i said the odds are so incredibly small. i didnt say it was impossible. still 100% agnostic. being 100% agnostic just means you think everythings possible, it doesnt mean you have to think everythings likely
You can't calculate probability on unknowns.
So what the hell are you talking about?

>>3229604
? You misunderstand. I was describing what libertarian free will is, not defending it or saying I think we possess such a thing.

I do say God possess libertarian free will though. There is nothing by which to limit God's will but His own nature, as He is ultimate reality, beside Him is no other. Any potential limitation but His nature does not exist as omniscience and omnipotence destroys such a limitation.

>>3229621
That implies that people are certain of their beliefs, which is simply false. Most people are more than willing to change their mind given sufficient evidence. In fact, I would argue that everyone but the clinically insane are willing to change any factual belief they hold given sufficient evidence.

For example, the die hard jesus guy. Have him shot, die slowly, and ascend up to heaven with an Angel. Have god tell him that "Yo dude! All that shit in the new testament? Yeah, it's fake."

The false dichotomy is between those who "know for sure" and those who are "unsure". It is a continuum of certainty. To narrow it down to two groups is a disservice and bullshit.

>>3229629
That relates to epistemology and is IRRELEVANT that what I've been talking about - which is ontology.