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."

Azuren on 14 January 2018
RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

Here's the part where you shove your other foot in your mouth; I'm not religious. Not even slightly. But you know, keep making assumptions. Like the ones where you assume Atheism and Agnosticism are the same thing.

Atheism is the belief that no god exists.

There, I backed you up, buddy.

I don't know if that was sarcasm or you're legitimately backing me up.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
OhNoYouDont on 14 January 2018
RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

Here's the part where you shove your other foot in your mouth; I'm not religious. Not even slightly. But you know, keep making assumptions. Like the ones where you assume Atheism and Agnosticism are the same thing.

Atheism is the belief that no god exists.

There, I backed you up, buddy.

Definitions are arbitrary.

That seems to have been misunderstood in this thread. If you, and others, define atheism as the belief that no gods exist then any arguments you make about atheism would operate under the assumption.

If I, and others, operate under a separate definition of atheism - let's suppose it is the skeptical response to the theistic claim, then we are operating under a different idea when we elucidate.

For instance, I find your definition to be reductionist nonsense reserved solely for positive atheists and mutually exclusive to negative atheists. It's a way of pretending there are fewer atheists on the planet to fuel the delusion that it's such a minuscule subset of humanity who obtains such enlightenment.



Nem on 14 January 2018
RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

Here's the part where you shove your other foot in your mouth; I'm not religious. Not even slightly. But you know, keep making assumptions. Like the ones where you assume Atheism and Agnosticism are the same thing.

Atheism is the belief that no god exists.

There, I backed you up, buddy.

Well Rol... you are as wrong as you could ever be. I expected more from you.

But then again... who knows if you are ever serious.

Azuren said:
Nem said:

You really are boring. The definition of the word Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. It is everywhere and is the definition of the word officially recognised. Many people have linked it already on this thread. 

Don't like it? Want to make up your own definition based on the lies fed to you by your religious leaders? Go ahead. Not my problem. But it's total BS and only you and your religious buddies will eat it. Don't expect the rest of the world to. And after that you go and play the victims and want special treatment. Yes, i've seen this sad carrousel before.

Here's the part where you shove your other foot in your mouth; I'm not religious. Not even slightly. But you know, keep making assumptions. Like the ones where you assume Atheism and Agnosticism are the same thing.

You aren't you? What sort of reply is that? That is not even the point of the post. So, yeah... again your reply is devoid of any content.

I think i am done with you at this point. Btw wether you are religious or not, that does not change that what i said is correct.

Peh said:
Nem said:

I don't understand what can be missing. If we can't prove them to be real, they can't be proven to be real and therefore we can't assume they are. If we can't assume they are real, they are not real until proven otherwise. Theres no in-between state. 

Oh i did notice i was missing a "that" in the sentence.

"We can't assume that things we don't know are real, therefore we assume they aren't until we can prove they are."

Go me posting all this on the Wii U browser. xD

You made it unnecessary complicated for yourself, arf. Instead of using the term "rejected" you could go with lack of belief, arf.

You can't reject something you don't know or a concept you are not aware of, arf. But you can not believing in one, arf. Since not believing until being aware of something is the default position, arf.

 

Meaning, you never believed in the almighty God Neko until I told you of his existence, arf. From this moment on you  can  decide to start believing in it ( becoming an theist) or reject the concept of his existence ( stay an atheist), arf. I say "stay" because until then, you were without a God, thus by definition and the very meaning of the word is an atheist, arf. Atheos, where a = without, theos = God, arf.

It is a theoligical position, not a claim on the existence of God, arf.

You're right. They did get stuck on the word and not the definition and logic. But oh well... i'm not a teacher. Easing it in gently isn't what i excel at.

What i do know, is that it is completely logical and it's how we determine reality. They can't understand it but it is what it is. It's not up for debate cause theres no other logical way to do it.

Well... fingers crossed your more elegant post manages to reach them.

Last edited by Nem - on 14 January 2018

Azuren on 14 January 2018
Nem said:
Azuren said:

Here's the part where you shove your other foot in your mouth; I'm not religious. Not even slightly. But you know, keep making assumptions. Like the ones where you assume Atheism and Agnosticism are the same thing.

You aren't you? What sort of reply is that? That is not even the point of the post. So, yeah... again your reply is devoid of any content.

I think i am done with you at this point. Btw wether you are religious or not, that does not change that what i said is correct.

Well, the point of your post is fundamentally wrong on just a definitions standpoint, so there isn't much point in addressing anything else you said. It's clear you just want it to mean a certain thing, and that's fine if you want to do that, but try not to make assumptions about other people just because you're upset about not having a leg to stand on.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Nem on 14 January 2018
Azuren said:
Nem said:

You aren't you? What sort of reply is that? That is not even the point of the post. So, yeah... again your reply is devoid of any content.

I think i am done with you at this point. Btw wether you are religious or not, that does not change that what i said is correct.

Well, the point of your post is fundamentally wrong on just a definitions standpoint, so there isn't much point in addressing anything else you said. It's clear you just want it to mean a certain thing, and that's fine if you want to do that, but try not to make assumptions about other people just because you're upset about not having a leg to stand on.

You were wrong. Your definition of atheism was wrong and even your excuse of the latin meaning was wrong as arfy just told me in the previous page. And btw terms don't define themselves, we do.

Your replies for the last 5 or 6 pages have been /pout after that. I made no assumption except you are poisoned with religious definitions. It's a fact, wether you are atheist or theist.

For example VG is an Atheist but his concepts are still unclear or influenced by religion. This is an educational problem at large in the US from what i know.

I'm not a good teacher. I know the logic and i know what's real and how to determine it. I did not learn specifically how to decode the way people think incorrectly and help them fix it. I apolgise, i wish i had that talent, but theres many books and atheists to talk with that will do a better job at explaining these things and i vehemently recommend them.



Around the Network
Azuren on 14 January 2018
Nem said:
Azuren said:

Well, the point of your post is fundamentally wrong on just a definitions standpoint, so there isn't much point in addressing anything else you said. It's clear you just want it to mean a certain thing, and that's fine if you want to do that, but try not to make assumptions about other people just because you're upset about not having a leg to stand on.

You were wrong. Your definition of atheism was wrong and even your excuse of the latin meaning was wrong as arfy just told me in the previous page. And btw terms don't define themselves, we do.

Your replies for the last 5 or 6 pages have been /pout after that. I made no assumption except you are poisoned with religious definitions. It's a fact, wether you are atheist or theist.

For example VG is an Atheist but his concepts are still unclear or influenced by religion. This is an educational problem at large in the US from what i know.

I'm not a good teacher. I know the logic and i know what's real and how to determine it. I did not learn specifically how to decode the way people think incorrectly and help them fix it. I apolgise, i wish i had that talent, but theres many books and atheists to talk with that will do a better job at explaining these things and i vehemently recommend them.

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".



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Nem on 14 January 2018
Azuren said:
Nem said:

You were wrong. Your definition of atheism was wrong and even your excuse of the latin meaning was wrong as arfy just told me in the previous page. And btw terms don't define themselves, we do.

Your replies for the last 5 or 6 pages have been /pout after that. I made no assumption except you are poisoned with religious definitions. It's a fact, wether you are atheist or theist.

For example VG is an Atheist but his concepts are still unclear or influenced by religion. This is an educational problem at large in the US from what i know.

I'm not a good teacher. I know the logic and i know what's real and how to determine it. I did not learn specifically how to decode the way people think incorrectly and help them fix it. I apolgise, i wish i had that talent, but theres many books and atheists to talk with that will do a better job at explaining these things and i vehemently recommend them.

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.

Last edited by Nem - on 14 January 2018

Azuren on 14 January 2018
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.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azuren on 14 January 2018
RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

I don't know if that was sarcasm or you're legitimately backing me up.

I am your sidekick.

What makes other people in this thread stumble is that a dictionary seach for 'atheism' lists 'agnosticism' as a synonym, but what these people fail to do is a search for 'agnosticism' and that term doesn't list 'atheism' as a synonym. So logically, the two words don't mean the same and can't be used interchangeably.

Do... Do we need to wear tights?



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Nem on 14 January 2018
Azuren said:
Nem said:

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.

Wow... this official means you are living in "koo-koo" world. Guess what? If a fact is proven wrong, it's not a fact. You are a walking contradiction sir. 

Also, no, Atheism and Agnosticism aren't the same thing. One says something over wether you believe something and the other over if you know something to be true. The position they reflect in face of the god preposition is what is the same. Wether you say you have no belief for god or if you say you cant know if he is real, you are saying the same thing.

How difficult is this stuff to understand eh? You should try physics, it will blow your head away.