By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

o_O.Q said:
Nem said:

Ridiculous.

1. You cannot prove something doesn't exist when you can't prove it exists in the first place. Your God is as likely as the pink unicorn from space. You can't disprove that aswell. That is a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules of logic.

Do you live in the basis that anything can be true? The monsters under your bed? Freddy in your dreams? Aliens in your backyard coming to do rectal exams? A peny that drops from space and will make a hole in your hand? Do you not see how that world view is chaotic?

2. Atheism is not a religion. There is nothing more to it than "we don't see proof that your god exists and therefore we don't believe in it" (btw just like no one would believe you had a dragon in your basement unless you provided proof). As for the last part, well... it is painfully true, but due to forum rules we try not to say it. But it is what it is. If religious people studied and learned, they would know religious claims are completely idiotic.

 

this is agnosticism

No, this is atheism, arf.

 

Agnostic position would be, that it is unknowable that a god exist, arf.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Around the Network
Peh said:
o_O.Q said:

 

this is agnosticism

No, this is atheism, arf.

 

Agnostic position would be, that it is unknowable that a god exist, arf.

no agnosticism is the neutral position of having no evidence so no belief

i've said it already but personally i think this new reclassification of what atheism is has been done to hand wave away people who criticise it

 

i have never in my life heard someone say that they'd reject evidence of a god if it was provided to them, but i have heard people that call themselves atheist quite often reject completely the idea that a god could exist(examples are present in this very thread)

some definitions still show that "Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist." this came from google

 

this whole thing about equating agnosticism and atheist is just a linguistic game and i just don't buy it



o_O.Q said:
Nem said:

Ridiculous.

1. You cannot prove something doesn't exist when you can't prove it exists in the first place. Your God is as likely as the pink unicorn from space. You can't disprove that aswell. That is a fundamental lack of understanding of the rules of logic.

Do you live in the basis that anything can be true? The monsters under your bed? Freddy in your dreams? Aliens in your backyard coming to do rectal exams? A peny that drops from space and will make a hole in your hand? Do you not see how that world view is chaotic?

2. Atheism is not a religion. There is nothing more to it than "we don't see proof that your god exists and therefore we don't believe in it" (btw just like no one would believe you had a dragon in your basement unless you provided proof). As for the last part, well... it is painfully true, but due to forum rules we try not to say it. But it is what it is. If religious people studied and learned, they would know religious claims are completely idiotic.

 

for one i didn't talk about a god... i didn't claim that i have one etc

i didn't imply that i have the basis that anything can be true

 

"we don't see proof that your god exists and therefore we don't believe in it"

this is agnosticism

 

and... it looks like you pretty much agreed with what i said here

"on the other hand there's really nothing to learn in atheism... its simply "there is no god" (even though there is no evidence of that) and "ha ha religious people are dumb" "

so why'd you take issue with my post anyway?

Well, we can agree that you got no proof for a God, that is true.

You just don't know your terms or were tought wrongly. "Agnostic" is not a noun, it's an adjective. You were tought wrongly by the people that wanted to invent a new meaning for the term and atheism so they could better attack it. The definition i gave you is Atheism. 

There is no belief that a God doesn't exist, as you'd like to believe. It's contradictory religious BS. If something doesn't exist, by default it's not believed. If you search the definition of Atheism you will find what it truly means. A poster above has already linked several of them.

 

Agnosticism is listed as: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.", wich is no different a position than Atheism because they also don't believe god is real. It just adds tat it can never be known.

It's therefore NOT a different position as Atheism.

I guess it's also possible people came up with it, just to be able to step out without being shunned. The US seems to have things like that.

 

Your post was filled with fallicies trying to affect a member who has gone the extra mile to learn and discover the facts of reality. You can too if you ever bother to do so. 

Last edited by Nem - on 11 January 2018

Eagle367 said:
roadkillers said:

Opinion on this quote by CS Lewis?

My take is isn't that true for any religion? I won't go to the extreme of no importance but only death can tell us which was right I'm sorry but I believe in an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent and everything God not an old man in the sky and if he doesn't wanna be found ain't nothing we can do to find evidence of his existence. So if any religion is right than we will know or not know since if atheists are right there will be nothingness and if Hindus are right we will reincarnate until we get to nirvana. If Muslims are right we will be in the in-between until the day of judgement and so on and so forth with Christianity Judaism Buddhism Japanese religions etc etc etc. That is why I believe and I don't know. Anyone who says science can disprove God or prove Him is mistaken it'd be like mario figuring out shigeru miyamoto is his creator and he is just in a video game but so much more difficult since miyamoto is a human not an ever present ever lasting all powerful entity who exists outside the realms of any universe and is bound by no physical laws

What you wrote here is just beautiful. This is the most PERFECT view of God I have read. In many ways I have always thought the same except you have made an incredible example of this. It's brilliant, actually. I love the whole mario/shigeru comparison...shigeru is like the god.

I agree, God is so far beyond what we can possibly know...it's somewhere we can NEVER access. And, even in death, we will never know...it just IS. I have always viewed it as: it is not meant to be explained and this will be a mystery until the end of time. Pointless to even discuss, really. A waste of time when you could can spend it more wisely by just enjoying the people you love that are around you or cherishing every waking second you have on this beautiful earth. Life life like tomorrow is your last. Carpe Diem - sieze the day!



People are really taking this out of context...

What Lewis is saying is clearly not that Christianity as a concept and historical entity is unimportant if not true. He's saying that if you believe in the core tenet that there is a heaven and hell where you will spend eternity, and which one you go to depends on whether or not you're doing what Jesus wants, then it is bizarre for anyone not to go balls deep with it. If you really truly believe this is where you will spend countless billions of years, anything less than full devotion is insane.



Around the Network
Nem said:
o_O.Q said:

 

for one i didn't talk about a god... i didn't claim that i have one etc

i didn't imply that i have the basis that anything can be true

 

"we don't see proof that your god exists and therefore we don't believe in it"

this is agnosticism

 

and... it looks like you pretty much agreed with what i said here

"on the other hand there's really nothing to learn in atheism... its simply "there is no god" (even though there is no evidence of that) and "ha ha religious people are dumb" "

so why'd you take issue with my post anyway?

Well, we can agree that you got no proof for a God, that is true.

You just don't know your terms or were tought wrongly. "Agnostic" is not a noun, it's an adjective. You were tought wrongly by the people that wanted to invent a new meaning for the term and atheism so they could better attack it. The definition i gave you is Atheism. 

There is no belief that a God doesn't exist, as you'd like to believe. It's contradictory religious BS. If something doesn't exist, by default it's not believed. If you search the definition of Atheism you will find what it truly means. A poster above has already linked several of them.

 

Agnosticism is listed as: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.", wich is no different a position than Atheism because they also don't believe god is real. It just adds tat it can never be known.

It's therefore NOT a different position as Atheism.

I guess it's also possible people came up with it, just to be able to step out without being shunned. The US seems to have things like that.

 

Your post was filled with fallicies trying to affect a member who has gone the extra mile to learn and discover the facts of reality. You can too if you ever bother to do so. 

"ou just don't know your terms or were tought wrongly. "Agnostic" is not a noun, it's an adjective. You were tought wrongly by the people that wanted to invent a new meaning for the term and atheism so they could better attack it"

there are plenty of resources that still have that definition(one of which i posted) and 10 years ago the vast majority of them did

 

"there is no belief that a God doesn't exist"

i'm sure that if i felt like it i could quote people saying this in this very thread... wtf man lol

 

"If something doesn't exist, by default it's not believed."

didn't you just say that the belief that god does not exist does not exist?

 

"It's therefore NOT a different position as Atheism."

lol ok, if you want to believe that atheism and agnosticism are the same you are free to do so



o_O.Q said:
Nem said:

Well, we can agree that you got no proof for a God, that is true.

You just don't know your terms or were tought wrongly. "Agnostic" is not a noun, it's an adjective. You were tought wrongly by the people that wanted to invent a new meaning for the term and atheism so they could better attack it. The definition i gave you is Atheism. 

There is no belief that a God doesn't exist, as you'd like to believe. It's contradictory religious BS. If something doesn't exist, by default it's not believed. If you search the definition of Atheism you will find what it truly means. A poster above has already linked several of them.

 

Agnosticism is listed as: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.", wich is no different a position than Atheism because they also don't believe god is real. It just adds tat it can never be known.

It's therefore NOT a different position as Atheism.

I guess it's also possible people came up with it, just to be able to step out without being shunned. The US seems to have things like that.

 

Your post was filled with fallicies trying to affect a member who has gone the extra mile to learn and discover the facts of reality. You can too if you ever bother to do so. 

"ou just don't know your terms or were tought wrongly. "Agnostic" is not a noun, it's an adjective. You were tought wrongly by the people that wanted to invent a new meaning for the term and atheism so they could better attack it"

there are plenty of resources that still have that definition(one of which i posted) and 10 years ago the vast majority of them did

 

"there is no belief that a God doesn't exist"

i'm sure that if i felt like it i could quote people saying this in this very thread... wtf man lol

 

"If something doesn't exist, by default it's not believed."

didn't you just say that the belief that god does not exist does not exist?

 

"It's therefore NOT a different position as Atheism."

lol ok, if you want to believe that atheism and agnosticism are the same you are free to do so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y

This is a pretty good representation, of the atheist view in general.  But I'll sum it up...

Basically, you are insisting on holding an inflexible definition of atheism and agnosticism, which happens to be one that many (most from my experience) atheists do not hold.

By doing this, you are preventing any real discussion from happening.  Instead of an actual conversation of what someone believes you wind up, as you and others have in this topic, having conversations about the semantics of the word atheist.

Really, what is the point of this?  Why not just ask the person what they mean when they say they are an atheist, and go from there discussing the actual beliefs?  Doesn't that seem more productive? As long as people in the conversation both understand what the other means when they say they are an atheist or agnostic, then that's all that really matters.  



JWeinCom said:
o_O.Q said:

"ou just don't know your terms or were tought wrongly. "Agnostic" is not a noun, it's an adjective. You were tought wrongly by the people that wanted to invent a new meaning for the term and atheism so they could better attack it"

there are plenty of resources that still have that definition(one of which i posted) and 10 years ago the vast majority of them did

 

"there is no belief that a God doesn't exist"

i'm sure that if i felt like it i could quote people saying this in this very thread... wtf man lol

 

"If something doesn't exist, by default it's not believed."

didn't you just say that the belief that god does not exist does not exist?

 

"It's therefore NOT a different position as Atheism."

lol ok, if you want to believe that atheism and agnosticism are the same you are free to do so

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjY619aJ82Y

This is a pretty good representation, of the atheist view in general.  But I'll sum it up...

Basically, you are insisting on holding an inflexible definition of atheism and agnosticism, which happens to be one that many (most from my experience) atheists do not hold.

By doing this, you are preventing any real discussion from happening.  Instead of an actual conversation of what someone believes you wind up, as you and others have in this topic, having conversations about the semantics of the word atheist.

Really, what is the point of this?  Why not just ask the person what they mean when they say they are an atheist, and go from there discussing the actual beliefs?  Doesn't that seem more productive? As long as people in the conversation both understand what the other means when they say they are an atheist or agnostic, then that's all that really matters.  

The apologetic approach is easier to attack atheists for what they are not, arf. These people reject the official definition and make their own, arf. 

It's like Sye says: "Atheists know that god exists but reject to believe in him", arf. Of course he talks about the christians god and no other god out there, arf.

 

That's obviously complete bullshit, arf.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Spoken as a true Christian.



o_O.Q said:
Peh said:

No, this is atheism, arf.

 

Agnostic position would be, that it is unknowable that a god exist, arf.

no agnosticism is the neutral position of having no evidence so no belief

i've said it already but personally i think this new reclassification of what atheism is has been done to hand wave away people who criticise it

 

i have never in my life heard someone say that they'd reject evidence of a god if it was provided to them, but i have heard people that call themselves atheist quite often reject completely the idea that a god could exist(examples are present in this very thread)

some definitions still show that "Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist." this came from google

 

this whole thing about equating agnosticism and atheist is just a linguistic game and i just don't buy it

I've posted the official definition for these terms, arf. Look it up, arf. You can't just make your own definition of a word and use it for your argument, arf. That's intellectual dishonesty, arf.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3