You know what? Screw atheism, I want guns in my school.

Bad^Hat

The Freeman
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
19,985
Reaction score
530
As far as defining atheism/agnosticism/whatever, I don't think there's any two ways about it, you're gonna fit into one category or another whether you like it or not. I think the problem some people have with it (including me) is they don't care for the labelling. Religion is, for many people, first and foremost a label. They want to be able to say "I'm a <whatever>ian/ist/baterian!" and they want to be able to say it proudly. Problem is, somewhere along the track athiesm and agnosticism seems to have come under the same token, and now non-believers are labelled and are free to be judged for their non-choice aswell. I have no problem with being an A-word by definition (you know it, lol), but it's when people insist on categorising me that it becomes an issue - I simply don't care enough.
Ooh, now brains is hurt. This was intentionally a no-brainer "Lol looks at this here website" thread, I think I made the mistake of putting "atheism" in the title.
Oh, and while I'm here, what do you guys think about this 'God' character? Is there a God?
Nope, dug your own grave there buddy. ;)

Welcome, by the way. Another fellow kiwi? We seem to be multiplying. :O
 

yakuruto

Newbie
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Your definition is flawed. Most dictionaries have a cultural bias.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that most personal opinions were bias-free :upstare: :LOL:

Refer to the etymology of each word, you'll see that my point stands.

I have no problem with being an A-word by definition (you know it, lol)
Yup, after all you're A-Bad^Hat
 

theotherguy

Newbie
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
5,108
Reaction score
0
Thats the first thing I looked up, still confused between negative atheism and agnosticism, sounds like the same thing; or one in the same.
GOD. DAMNIT.

NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN!

Theotherguy said:
THE QUESTION OF BELIEF IS BINARY
1. Theist- Holds a positive belief in a diety
2. Atheist- Does not

THE QUESTION OF KNOWLEDGE IS ALSO BINARY
1. Gnostic- Knows that there is/is not a god.
2. Agnostic- Does not know, or does not believe it is possible to know, if there is a god or gods.


AGNOSTICISM COMES IN MULTIPLE LEVELS
1. Weak Agnostic- Lacks knowledge of a god.
2. Strong Agnostic- Believes that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god.

ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
1. Knowledge and belief are independent.

THEREFORE YOU HAVE, WITH THESE TWO VARIABLES, THESE COMBINATIONS
1. Weak Agnostic Atheist- Lacks knowledge and belief in a god.
2. Strong Agnostic Atheist- Believes it is impossible to know there is a god, and lacks belief in that god.
3. Gnostic Atheist- Knows that there is no god and does not believe.
4. Weak Agnostic Theist- Lacks knowledge of a god, yet believes in a god on faith, without evidence.
5. Strong Agnostic Theist- Believes it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god, and believes that this god exists.
6. Gnostic Theist- Knows there is a god and believes.
7. Denying Atheist- Knows there is a god, yet does not believe.
8. Denying Theist- Knows there is no god, yet believes.
 

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,321
Reaction score
62
Most articles on Conservapedia, appear to be written by 5 year olds.
that's being overly generous ..at least 5 year olds arent purposefully stupid


in some of the articles you can almost see the writer frothing at the mouth over the Liberal media who promote homosexual and atheist agendas ..it's a freakin conspiracy ..most articles on subjects that conservatives are touchy about ie: homosexuality or evolution. are utterly ridiculous ..to think people get their information solely from conservapedia, it just boggles the mind that people would purposefully be that close minded
 

theotherguy

Newbie
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
5,108
Reaction score
0
Good god, or lack of (bad joke).
So you're saying that you can be one or the other OR BOTH, but a weak atheist and an agnostic are not one in the same?
A weak atheist is by definition an agnostic atheist. You must be either a theist or an atheist. You must also be either a gnostic or an agnostic. Everyone in the world falls into those categories when it comes to belief/knowledge of a god.

"Strong atheism" is just another term for "gnostic atheism".

An "agnostic" may either be theist or atheist, dependent on whether or not he/she believes in a god. But it is impossible to be just "agnostic".
 

MJ12

The Freeman
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
12,845
Reaction score
62
Extremist Atheists are just as foolish, close minded, and biased as extremist Religious people. I like nothing that is extreme. Both sides of the extreme bother me.

Whatever happened to just being a regular atheist, or a moderate religious person? People are people. Everyone has to be so hostile.
Oh wait, that's how it's pretty much always been...
 

yakuruto

Newbie
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
theotherguy said:
ATHEISM AND AGNOSTICISM ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
1. Knowledge and belief are independent.
Exactly! They focus on different concepts, so they can't antagonize.

Only one question, how can someone know for a fact that there's or not any god?
Regarding "god" I don't see how "gnostic" can be applied to anyone.
 

delusional

Tank
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
2,577
Reaction score
0
Exactly! They focus on different concepts, so they can't antagonize.

Only one question, how can someone know for a fact that there's or not any god?
Regarding "god" I don't see how "gnostic" can be applied to anyone.
Not many people are gnostic atheists when it comes to God in general. Gods that have been defined, such as YHWH, Allah, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Ishtar, etc. many people are Gnostic Atheists, Even If you believe in a God or many Gods and not the rest. So technically almost everyone is a Gnostic atheist in one shape or form.
 

Sulkdodds

Companion Cube
Joined
Jul 3, 2003
Messages
18,851
Reaction score
25
Nobody can no anything for a fact. All I mean when I tell you something is not true is that "there is not enough evidence for me to accept it as a viable provisional judgement." Of course, that will not make my avowal any less vehement.

There is not currently enough evidence for me to consider the concept of God tenable. Therefore, I do not believe in the concept of God. Indeed, I believe there is probably no God, just as, in the absence of evidence, I believe there is probably no mouse on the moon.
 

theotherguy

Newbie
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
5,108
Reaction score
0
Exactly! They focus on different concepts, so they can't antagonize.

Only one question, how can someone know for a fact that there's or not any god?
Regarding "god" I don't see how "gnostic" can be applied to anyone.
They don't have to necessarily actually know something, they just have to claim or believe that they know.

Gnostic Theist: "I know God exists, I saw him with my own eyes".
"I know God exists, I just do."

Gnostic Atheist: "I know that God doesn't exist. I have knowledge/experience/evidence X saying that he doesn't."

"I know that God doesn't exist. I just do"

Note, though, most gnostic positions are fallacious and irrational, unless they really did physically see/meet god or find evidence of him.
 

lame-o

Newbie
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
1,003
Reaction score
0
What the **** is extremist atheism anyways? lol I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD SOOOOOO MUCH I'LL KILL YOU ALL!!!
 

yakuruto

Newbie
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Isn't that the equivalent of extremist theism?

"You infidels deserve to die!!!!!!!!!!!"

BOOM!!!
 

Krynn72

The Freeman
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
26,084
Reaction score
918
What the **** is extremist atheism anyways? lol I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD SOOOOOO MUCH I'LL KILL YOU ALL!!!
They're the ones who argue passionately about how there is no god. They're pretty much on par with religious extremists who suicide bomb, deny life-saving medical procedures to people in need, enforce un-safe sex practices, and deny proven facts. They're just as bad as those people. :|
 

theotherguy

Newbie
Joined
Jul 5, 2003
Messages
5,108
Reaction score
0
They're the ones who argue passionately about how there is no god. They're pretty much on par with religious extremists who suicide bomb, deny life-saving medical procedures to people in need, enforce un-safe sex practices, and deny proven facts. They're just as bad as those people. :|
Huh? So arguing is now "on par" with suicide bombing, enforcing of un-safe sex practices and denying proven facts?

Does not compute.

Edit: the face makes me think sarcasm. Damn you, internet!
 

Krynn72

The Freeman
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
26,084
Reaction score
918
Hmm, which religion enforce un-safe sex practices?
Catholicism, with the whole "dont use condoms" thing.

Huh? So arguing is now "on par" with suicide bombing, enforcing of un-safe sex practices and denying proven facts?

Does not compute.

Edit: the face makes me think sarcasm. Damn you, internet!
Hah, yeah. T'was sarcasm in response to ZombieTurtle's post.
 

yakuruto

Newbie
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Catholicism, with the whole "dont use condoms" thing.
Ah, you seem be misunderstanding that.

Catholicism doesn't enforce unsafe sex practices. Catholic law specifically says that you must have only one sexual partner, to whom you must be married, and have sex only to procreate, not for the sake of pleasure or amusement.

True, they say "if you use condoms you'll go to hell", but also say "if you're like a golf ball, going from one hole to another, you'll catch one or several STD and then go to hell".

If you see it objectively, they're in fact telling people to have safer sex. If both you and your sexual partner are clean and don't engage in sexual activity with anyone else you don't have to worry about SDT's, right?

I support condoms not only as protection against STD's but also as a contraceptive, after all sex is an important part of any couple's relationship.
 

MJ12

The Freeman
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
12,845
Reaction score
62
Ah, you seem be misunderstanding that.

Catholicism doesn't enforce unsafe sex practices. Catholic law specifically says that you must have only one sexual partner, to whom you must be married, and have sex only to procreate, not for the sake of pleasure or amusement.
Actually they believe it has a dual purpose, not just procreation. It's for procreation and intimate bonding. They believe you need both, not only one, for it to be justified.

However, a huge hypocrisy is that they believe "planned parenting" is alright, aka, testing your wifes vagina temperature to see when she will have her period so you know when to fornicate without getting her pregnant.

They believe it is alright because it is "natural" and that using a condom/birth control/etc, would be "unnatural", disrespectful, and interfere with both bonding and procreation.
Absolutely moronic.
 

Bad^Hat

The Freeman
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
19,985
Reaction score
530
Ah, you seem be misunderstanding that.

Catholicism doesn't enforce unsafe sex practices. Catholic law specifically says that you must have only one sexual partner, to whom you must be married, and have sex only to procreate, not for the sake of pleasure or amusement.

True, they say "if you use condoms you'll go to hell", but also say "if you're like a golf ball, going from one hole to another, you'll catch one or several STD and then go to hell".

If you see it objectively, they're in fact telling people to have safer sex. If both you and your sexual partner are clean and don't engage in sexual activity with anyone else you don't have to worry about SDT's, right?

I support condoms not only as protection against STD's but also as a contraceptive, after all sex is an important part of any couple's relationship.
We know, christ. But do you really think just telling people not to f*ck is an effective way to stop the spread of STDs? Of course it f*cking isn't, any idiot with a pointy hat could figure that out. It takes an idiot with a pointy hat and strong religious convictions to do it anyway.

Unless you're just debating semantics again, in which case, shut your face up.
 

[Matt]

Newbie
Joined
May 9, 2003
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
0
TBH, screw atheism too. My best conclusion is none. My official stance to the question "do you believe in god?" is simply put I don't know, lets leave it at that. I don't think it's a question mean't to be answered throughout one's life. Not saying agnosticism either, why believe it if there is no proof; likewise why deny it if there's no true lack of it (I mean we don't know the answers, so no conclusion is best)
From what you've described above you're an atheist by definition... You seem to LACK a belief in a god or gods with a final agnostic position regarding proof of your lack of belief. Atheism isn't a cast iron belief that there isn't a god but a simple LACK of belief as this is what the word means. Its also important to note that the terms agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive terms as atheism describes your lack of belief and agnosticism describes your position on the matter as bieng one who simply cannot prove a gods existence either way. You could describe yourself as an agnostic atheist if you wished everyone to know that you're not a believer in god but that you know that you cannot prove either way with evidence that there is no god whilst someone else might say they're an agnostic theist if theyre of the opposite opinion but same position. The vast majority of non believers can also be described as agnostic atheists.
 

Glirk Dient

Newbie
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
0
Actually I am pretty sure not having sex for pleasure will cause you some mental harm. People simply won't not screw, it's like telling a person addicted to drugs to just stop. It doesn't work like that. Sometimes you need to come up with a new idea, especially when telling people not to do it hasn't worked ever and isn't about to.
 

Pesmerga

Newbie
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
10,092
Reaction score
2
Population control should never be enforced by law, but encouraged by incentives!
 

yakuruto

Newbie
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
We know, christ. But do you really think just telling people not to f*ck is an effective way to stop the spread of STDs? Of course it f*cking isn't, any idiot with a pointy hat could figure that out. It takes an idiot with a pointy hat and strong religious convictions to do it anyway.

Unless you're just debating semantics again, in which case, shut your face up.
Nope, it's nope semantics. I know people won't stop having sex because someone tells them is wrong, and if sexually active people care about their health is obvious that protection is required.
But some people misunderstand the condom issue. In no way the Vatican is enforcing unsafe sexual practices since they don't tell people "go f*uck as much as you can, but make sure you don't use any condoms or you'll be damned".

And what if this was about semantics? I wouldn't stop just because any *ahem* guy with a non pointy hat avatar tells me to. :smoking:
 

Pesmerga

Newbie
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
10,092
Reaction score
2
So... what are they saying? Can married couples use condoms without committing sin?
 

DEATHMASTER

The Freeman
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
151
From what you've described above you're an atheist by definition... You seem to LACK a belief in a god or gods with a final agnostic position regarding proof of your lack of belief. Atheism isn't a cast iron belief that there isn't a god but a simple LACK of belief as this is what the word means. Its also important to note that the terms agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive terms as atheism describes your lack of belief and agnosticism describes your position on the matter as bieng one who simply cannot prove a gods existence either way. You could describe yourself as an agnostic atheist if you wished everyone to know that you're not a believer in god but that you know that you cannot prove either way with evidence that there is no god whilst someone else might say they're an agnostic theist if theyre of the opposite opinion but same position. The vast majority of non believers can also be described as agnostic atheists.
Well if you are either an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist, then you are confirming that you do or do not think god exists, just the proof part is variable. I was saying that I don't know if one exists and don't wish to answer the question since I'm not influenced to either side. I don't lack the belief of one because I don't see any particular reason to not lack belief either. I think that I don't want to answer the question at all if possible. If I was talking to some kid while looking up at the stars and was asked if I thought someone made us I'd answer "I don't know" and leave it at that.
 

DEATHMASTER

The Freeman
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
12,759
Reaction score
151
Who the hell is that? Reminds me of Tim's wife on Home Improvement.
 

Krynn72

The Freeman
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
26,084
Reaction score
918
BABIEEEEEEEEEEEES!

Did the Vatican not ban condom use in Africa?
 

Atomic_Piggy

Newbie
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,489
Reaction score
2
Well, it advised them not to use it, and since they get no other education, they don't get any and AIDS is spread. If the church handed out condoms it would save lives, but instead its gonna be naive and stobburn. It hasn't changed much since the Middle Ages.
 

yakuruto

Newbie
Joined
Feb 2, 2008
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
And we're facing another case of biased interpretation.

Just because you don't agree with the church point of view it doesn't mean they're at fault.

They specifically advice DON'T go around f*ucking with every person that crosses your way. It's stupid to blame the church for people getting infected with AIDS. If people over there follow church's advice of not using condoms, why don't they follow also the "don't be promiscuous" one?

If people get infected for unsafe sex it's their own fault for being indecisive about what to do:

1. They ignore the church completely and have a disordered sex life but use condoms.

2. They follow both advices and stop having random sex partners, become monogamous and then the risk of getting infected (because of sex) will drop dramatically even if they don't use condoms.
 

RjD

Newbie
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
@ yakaruto

And we're facing another case of biased interpretation.
No, we are not. But we face some weaseling on your side of argument.

Well, most importantly, teaching "abstinence" in order to reduce amount of "disordered sexual behavior" is known to be






first
Research (http://www.apa.org/releases/sexeducation.html http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_R...fm?DR_ID=46850 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21670758/ ) PROVES (Yeah, effing PROVES) that teaching abstinence does not have any beneficial effect. Deal with it.


second

president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family said:
The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom
Exact quote as appeared on a BBC1 Panorama. Note the absence of words indicating the poor state of condom in question, which OBVIOUSLY implies that Mr. Trujillo is referring to an undamaged condom, and thus lying.
deal with it


third
Preaching abstinence (which is known to have no effect) when combined with propaganda demonstrated by Mr Trujillo is almost right-out murder.
Deal with it.
 
Top