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

[Azuren]

Nem said:

Azuren said:

You were wrong. Your definition of atheism was wrong and even your excuse of the main meaning being incorrect was wrong, despite a dog telling you otherwise on a previous page. (See how easy it is to simply refute?)

 

Your replies for the last 5 or 6 pages have just been a large tantrum, and honestly I don't believe you even remember that it was an argument concerning how Agnosticism and Atheism are not the same thing. And again, you make assumptions that my character, motivations, and upbringing are religious or influenced by religion. Guess what? You're wrong again. I suppose it's just more comfortable for you to remain wrong now, since you've spent the entire thread being as much. And now you make those same assumptions about VG, all because you just can't accept that you're incorrect.

 

And you're right, you're not a good teacher. It has little to do with what you said, though, and is more accurately linked to your stubbornness. Example:

 

Guy says he's not religious. "HE CLEARLY IS BECAUSE HE DISAGREES WITH ME."

Guy says he's atheist. "HE IS CLEARLY HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY RELIGION BECAUSE HE DISAGREES WITH ME."

 

Honestly, man, the least you could do is respect when someone says they aren't religious instead of deciding that they are. I know I said you can pretend atheism means something else, but I most definitely didn't say "Hey, decide my religion so you can attempt to discredit my opinion because reasons".

What religious stance you have is IRRELEVENT. Your definition of Atheism was wrong and that means you were tought wrongly from a religious influence in your learning system. You defined Atheism as the belief that there is no God. It was bolded even. That is WRONG! You can squirm all you want and claim that i am wrong, but any respectable dictionary search will prove me right.

None of my claims are my opinions. They are facts. I might not be able to express them clearly in a way you can understand but they are. What do you want me to say when people didn't have the education they deserve so they have the means to properly rationalise these things? I don't make up knowledge. This is NOT a battle of opinions. This is not me saying "i" think this is how it works. I am not a scientist nor are any of you as far as i can tell. Facts are not opinions. They are scientific conclusions. I am sharing the conclusions that are proven true and logical. If you can't understand or refuse to understand what do you want me to do? Give you an "F"? I blame the obvious reason as to why you don't have the necessary faculties (religion).

But the good news is, it can be overcome. It requires studying and in some cases good teachers though.

If this offends you, i am sorry, but i am an honest person, wich is also a flaw. I don't sugar coat things.

Paraphrasing the same stance over and over doesn't make you right, it makes you stubborn. The only part of your statements that are factual is that, by definition, facts can be proven wrong. And considering you believe Agnosticism and Atheism are the same thing (something that has already been shown to not be true), yes. I suppose they are factual. Factually incorrect.