[X] My Assistant

[Lord Raven]

But then what you're describing seems to pretty much mean agnostic lol so I don't understand why the wordplay of "agnostic atheist" exists when it describes more or less an agnostic

[Synx Itax]

It's just to make things more specific, I guess. There are agnostic theists, too.

[Lord Raven]

That's too much, I think it's pointless to argue the use of the word as it stands anyway because
a) it's easier to understand someone who says that they don't really believe in God but doesn't deny his lack of existence
b) Arguments about word meanings are pointless and take too much time

[Vixenite]

I'm atheist/agnostic.

I'm not attacking you personally, but there is a distinct difference in the words you just used. Atheist means you do not believe in God. Agnostic means you believe there might be a God, a cosmic being, or whatever.

Do not get those two mixed up because they lead to very different discussions. I do not like how kids these days just throw around vocabulary that they might not 100% understand and yet they use it like they know what they mean.

It's funny how many completely wrong things you say in this discussion, like this. Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive, and you CAN label yourself as an atheist and still believe there's a possibility a god might exist.

Throwing my own penny in the fountain here but

What's the point in having 2 groups if they're not exclusive? I just. What.

If you don't believe in a God or some higher power then that's fine. But surely if you don't believe in something like that, then you can't say they also think there's a possibility that a God might exist. Because that would be pretty much Agnostic.

I'm probably reading this entirely wrong or I fluked my religion class, but I'm pretty sure you can't be both Agnostic and Atheist at one time :l Essentially saying you're Atheist but also believing there's a possibility of a God cancels out the whole Atheist thinking and sits you in Agnostic.

My brain hurts trying to understand all of what you said and how you thought of it in the first place graaaah (this is also the part where I look like a complete tit because I'm wrong)

I believe someone created the word agnostic a long time ago, something that many atheists are not thrilled about. I prefer referring to myself as an atheist, because I believe god doesn't exist like I don't believe a yeti exists. I would say "I don't believe a yeti exists", because that's the most logical conclusion. Even if 80% of the world believed in yetis, it doesn't make them existing any more likely. The evidence of their existence is highly lacking. So while I can't prove they don't existence, that's not a good enough reason to entertain their existence.

People often say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but they use that phrase incorrectly. If you can reasonably expect evidence of something, then the lack of evidence for it is very telling.

This post has been edited by Rainbow Dash x: Jun 12 2013, 11:17 AM

[Lord Raven]

I don't understand any of your points past the words "I prefer referring to myself as an atheist"

[Vixenite]

I don't understand any of your points past the words "I prefer referring to myself as an atheist"

I meant not only do people not assume that I can swayed by all the "evidence" they have that I've heard 100 times before if I call myself an atheist, but also that I wouldn't refer to myself as a yeti-agnostic. People wouldn't take issue with me saying "yetis don't exist, there's no evidence". When it comes to god, they expect me to prove it's impossible. It's exceedingly hard to prove something doesn't exist, and it's not something I need to do. They need to prove their god exists.

I was also saying if it's reasonable to expect evidence of something (such as a god), then absence of evidence is a pretty good evidence of absence.

[Lord Raven]

I don't see where the comparison to yetis and God came in, because God was an establishment of many civilizations (and still remains to be) whereas yetis are just some mythical creature. On the flipside, you can't prove them wrong by saying that you dont believe in yetis lol because the concept and context is completely different. That's simplifying an argument and intellectually dishonest from my point of view.

[Yamper]

I'm atheist/agnostic.

I'm not attacking you personally, but there is a distinct difference in the words you just used. Atheist means you do not believe in God. Agnostic means you believe there might be a God, a cosmic being, or whatever.

Do not get those two mixed up because they lead to very different discussions. I do not like how kids these days just throw around vocabulary that they might not 100% understand and yet they use it like they know what they mean.

It's funny how many completely wrong things you say in this discussion, like this. Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive, and you CAN label yourself as an atheist and still believe there's a possibility a god might exist.

Throwing my own penny in the fountain here but

What's the point in having 2 groups if they're not exclusive? I just. What.

If you don't believe in a God or some higher power then that's fine. But surely if you don't believe in something like that, then you can't say they also think there's a possibility that a God might exist. Because that would be pretty much Agnostic.

I'm probably reading this entirely wrong or I fluked my religion class, but I'm pretty sure you can't be both Agnostic and Atheist at one time :l Essentially saying you're Atheist but also believing there's a possibility of a God cancels out the whole Atheist thinking and sits you in Agnostic.

My brain hurts trying to understand all of what you said and how you thought of it in the first place graaaah (this is also the part where I look like a complete tit because I'm wrong)

I believe someone created the word agnostic a long time ago, something that many atheists are not thrilled about. I prefer referring to myself as an atheist, because I believe god doesn't exist like I don't believe a yeti exists. I would say "I don't believe a yeti exists", because that's the most logical conclusion. Even if 80% of the world believed in yetis, it doesn't make them existing any more likely. The evidence of their existence is highly lacking. So while I can't prove they don't existence, that's not a good enough reason to entertain their existence.

People often say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but they use that phrase incorrectly. If you can reasonably expect evidence of something, then the lack of evidence for it is very telling.

After reading through several times I really don't see how that even responded to what I said in my previous post. That mostly consisted of the points of view of you trying to explain religious words through the use of a creature that may or may not exist?

But that still doesn't really explain as to why for some reason Agnostics = Atheists..

People may use all these fancy expansions of the 3 words but why? Why confuse things? Just keep the three damn words the same and state whether you do, maybe or don't think there' a God.

Few posts behind but whatever.

[Vixenite]

I don't see where the comparison to yetis and God came in, because God was an establishment of many civilizations (and still remains to be) whereas yetis are just some mythical creature. On the flipside, you can't prove them wrong by saying that you dont believe in yetis lol because the concept and context is completely different. That's simplifying an argument and intellectually dishonest from my point of view.

Unicorns and dragons are an establishment of many civilizations. Doesn't make it true. There's not any evidence that a god is true.

[Little Peanut]

I believe that there are two types opinions by which we judge people on,
opinions that can be deemed socially aceptable to judge people on,
and opinions one believes that are acceptable to judge people based on are own opinions

so I believe should not judge people on their religious beliefs unless they contradict a set of morals that I believe in, that being things such as killing people is bad, and things along that line.

[Vixenite]

After reading through several times I really don't see how that even responded to what I said in my previous post. That mostly consisted of the points of view of you trying to explain religious words through the use of a creature that may or may not exist?

My bad, only my first sentence really addressed what you said. The rest was talking about what others had said in the thread. I realise that was unclear looking back. I'll go back and try to address it more thoroughly.

What's the point in having 2 groups if they're not exclusive? I just. What.

 
It's not exactly the same thing, it's just that atheism can incorporate the same ideas commonly expressed as agnostic. There are different ways to express that you believe a god existing is possible, like "soft atheism" and agnostic atheism", and many people just shorten that to atheism. Even people who say they believe a god is possible are not necessarily saying it's likely. People can also refer to themselves as theists and have agnostic leanings.

If you don't believe in a God or some higher power then that's fine. But surely if you don't believe in something like that, then you can't say they also think there's a possibility that a God might exist. Because that would be pretty much Agnostic.

You can, as atheism is described as denial or disbelief of god. Disbelief doesn't mean you're asserting it's 100% not true.

I'm probably reading this entirely wrong or I fluked my religion class, but I'm pretty sure you can't be both Agnostic and Atheist at one time :l Essentially saying you're Atheist but also believing there's a possibility of a God cancels out the whole Atheist thinking and sits you in Agnostic.

Again, that's not true. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism, while atheism is the bigger and more umbrella term. An example is having the label "disabled", someone who is blind can still use the term "disabled" to refer to themselves, nothing wrong with that. Though .. as I said earlier referring to oneself as "soft atheist" in place of "agnostic" is very common and in some cases preferred.

People may use all these fancy expansions of the 3 words but why? Why confuse things? Just keep the three damn words the same and state whether you do, maybe or don't think there' a God.

They're not being changed. Atheism has included beliefs commonly called agnostic since before the word agnostic even existed.

[Lord Raven]

I don't know if we can just can this whole atheism vs agnosticism debate. They're just words, just describe what you believe and get the word debates the hell away from here because nobody cares if the words are the same thing. Look at a dictionary instead of arguing. I think it's generally agreed upon by peopel who do not look very much into religious terms at all that agnosticism is contemplation of belief and atheism is a firm belief, and that's more or less what matters; the general perception of the words and not the technical definition of the words themselves

Unicorns and dragons are an establishment of many civilizations. Doesn't make it true. There's not any evidence that a god is true.

You're fucking kidding me. What civilizations are those? Anime clubs? I'm not using it as evidence, I'm saying you can't make anything akin to those arguments to disprove God simply because
a) it's a very philosophical point
b) it is the basis of the way of life of many people in this world. Look at the numbers. In 2005 the number was like 54% of the people in this world
And let me take this time to remind you that it's not proof that God exists, because I already know exactly what kind of debater you are and will be. It's simply proof that your arguments do not work against the majority of people in this world.

I'm an apatheist myself, but you probably don't realize that your comparisons of God to other things that we are 99% sure are fantasy are unfounded and quite ignorant.

[Synx Itax]

I don't know if we can just can this whole atheism vs agnosticism debate. They're just words, just describe what you believe and get the word debates the hell away from here because nobody cares if the words are the same thing. Look at a dictionary instead of arguing. I think it's generally agreed upon by peopel who do not look very much into religious terms at all that agnosticism is contemplation of belief and atheism is a firm belief, and that's more or less what matters; the general perception of the words and not the technical definition of the words themselves

Unicorns and dragons are an establishment of many civilizations. Doesn't make it true. There's not any evidence that a god is true.

You're fucking kidding me. What civilizations are those? Anime clubs? I'm not using it as evidence, I'm saying you can't make anything akin to those arguments to disprove God simply because
a) it's a very philosophical point
b) it is the basis of the way of life of many people in this world. Look at the numbers. In 2005 the number was like 54% of the people in this world
And let me take this time to remind you that it's not proof that God exists, because I already know exactly what kind of debater you are and will be. It's simply proof that your arguments do not work against the majority of people in this world.

I'm an apatheist myself, but you probably don't realize that your comparisons of God to other things that we are 99% sure are fantasy are unfounded and quite ignorant.

Actually, Rainbow Dash x makes a very good point. Dragons ARE found in many civilizations around the world -- a basic study of world history would show this. They're extremely important in Chinese cultures, South American cultures (or at least they were several hundred to thousand years ago), and a variety of others, though the look and feel of the dragon might vary. In fact, people are still wondering why civilizations have such similar concepts for dragons when they've never interacted with each other. I'm not sure about unicorns, but I know they were also present in Chinese culture in the form of kirin/quilin, and I know they were part of European mythology as well. A lot of these beasts were considered gods -- just look at Quetzalcoatl, for instance -- so they were very important.

However, just because people held them in such high regard doesn't mean that they exist, nor has evidence been found for them. The comparison to a god is perfectly valid, and I could make the same claim for the loch ness monster, bigfoot, etc. I'd find those latter things far more plausible than a god, myself. And if a culture worships dragons or unicorns, their beliefs aren't suddenly less valid than someone who just believes in some human-like god in the sky. Both require proof, and without them, I sure won't bother believing.

This post has been edited by Synx Itax: Jun 15 2013, 03:45 PM

[Vixenite]

You're fucking kidding me. What civilizations are those? Anime clubs?

because I already know exactly what kind of debater you are and will be. It's simply proof that your arguments do not work against the majority of people in this world.

And you tried to say I was being aggressive earlier ..

Just what kind of debater do you perceive me to be? If you're attacking my points bring up something that counters what I said. You implied that god being an establishment of many civilizations somehow gives it more merit. You said yetis are "just some mythical creature", while implying god was not. Unless you can prove god is more than just a mythical creature, I think the comparison to other mythical creatures is very relevant. How many civilizations believe and still believe in it is hardly relevant.

Also, what Synx said about the dragons. They're certainly more than just topics for anime clubs.

[Lord Raven]

That's not my point. My point is the comparison doesn't fly when at least half the world is extremely sure that there is a God. You can disprove dragons and unicorns easily because there's not nearly as many people that believe in Chinese culture as the Abrahamic religions (or any religion for that matter).

You think it really matters to me whether or not you believe in God and whether or not you require proof for a God and whether or not a yeti is more believable than a God? No! But it will not fly with most religious people, who legitimately believe there is proof every single day of a God, especially because their flow of logic will not agree with yours. The same with the Chinese cultures you are referring to because in that case, it is almost the same context. The right to make comparisons with strong wording in such a way that makes this large portion of the world sound stupid is incredibly rude and quite unfair to those of different faith/belief, especially because religion established itself properly in the minds of many far before many of our scientific theories became widespread.

Let me add to this that I really do not care what you believe and I do not see myself changing your faith (because I'm still nowhere near changing mine despite my arguments), I just believe the way yall are arguing gives the impression of closed-mindedness that rubs me in the completely wrong way. Before we continue I'd love for you to answer a question:
Do you believe most of the world is stupid for being theistic?

[Crights]

I'm atheist and I was in a Christian school for 4 years, and nothing have changed, and no one noticed that I wasn't christian, lots of people there was atheist too, and we don't think religion is good or bad, I just don't think there is something afterlife or a Salvation or anything, I just think I'm gonna die, and things happen because they have to happen, but if someone thinks that there is someone or something that makes us live, I just respect the idea, but I can't believe something like that.
Each one believe in a different thing, I think

[Commander Wymsy]

You're fucking kidding me. What civilizations are those? Anime clubs?

I don't understand why you just not too long along ago told people to steer away from comments like this in a different debate thread but now you're doing it yourself. Perhaps you should take your own words into account, and try to be more careful and lash-out less in sensitive topics such as this one.

[Synx Itax]

That's not my point. My point is the comparison doesn't fly when at least half the world is extremely sure that there is a God. You can disprove dragons and unicorns easily because there's not nearly as many people that believe in Chinese culture as the Abrahamic religions (or any religion for that matter).

You think it really matters to me whether or not you believe in God and whether or not you require proof for a God and whether or not a yeti is more believable than a God? No! But it will not fly with most religious people, who legitimately believe there is proof every single day of a God, especially because their flow of logic will not agree with yours. The same with the Chinese cultures you are referring to because in that case, it is almost the same context. The right to make comparisons with strong wording in such a way that makes this large portion of the world sound stupid is incredibly rude and quite unfair to those of different faith/belief, especially because religion established itself properly in the minds of many far before many of our scientific theories became widespread.

Let me add to this that I really do not care what you believe and I do not see myself changing your faith (because I'm still nowhere near changing mine despite my arguments), I just believe the way yall are arguing gives the impression of closed-mindedness that rubs me in the completely wrong way. Before we continue I'd love for you to answer a question:
Do you believe most of the world is stupid for being theistic?

Stupid? No, I just think a great many are misguided and are often believing for the wrong reasons. A great lot of them were indoctrinated, which is a huge reason why so many people believe in the first place. Plenty of cultures got converted a while back, and they continue indoctrinating their culture/children/etc today through many methods. I frankly don't care if people believe or not, just like I don't care if people believe in dragons or unicorns. The problem lies when they're pushing those beliefs on others when they are unwanted, and also when they claim to KNOW there is a god (the "extremely sure there's a god" people you mentioned, I guess); gnostic theism is pointless because if someone actually knew there was a god AND provided proof, they'd deserve several serious scientific prizes for ending the god/no god debate. But... no such proof has been given, and "look at the world around you!" isn't proof (many of them love to throw that around).

Also, the argument from majority means nothing to me. I don't care if most of the world believes and for how long they've believed. If they just believe in a god figure, once again, it doesn't really bother me. If they're going to believe ancient tales despite current scientific theories and are going to claim things like the Earth being 6,000 years old or existing on the back of a turtle, I'm going to wonder how seriously they got indoctrinated and how damaging it will be if they actively try to convert others.

You do not disprove something because more people believe otherwise. A long time ago, most people (at least in Greek culture -- I can't speak for the rest of the world) believed the sun revolved around the Earth (many of them Christian theologians who saw how it contradicted their texts, actually). Well, looks like the minority was, in fact, correct. This may not be a supernatural analogy, but it's the same type of thing. Most people COULD be wrong. All it takes it evidence from one side or the other, whether it's a god, dragons, fairies, unicorns, etc.

Back when the Abrahamic religions were new, most people believed in other things such as the Roman/Greek pantheon. So... I guess we could disprove the Abrahamic god that way? See, it's the same thing. Things change with time. In the future, maybe most people will either not believe in something, believe in a five-necked dragon beast, or who knows what else.

I sincerely fail to see how any of this is "rude." I'm laying out some history for those who might not be familiar with it, I'm responding to logical fallacies with points I'm making, I'm making perfectly logical comparisons. If you don't feel that comparing dragons (once seen as gods, again) to a general Abrahamic or otherwise god is valid, well, that's really your opinion and you can have it. For me, though, and many other people, one mythical entity does not sit above the other as neither has evidence for it.

This post has been edited by Synx Itax: Jun 16 2013, 12:15 PM

[Lord Raven]

I don't understand why you just not too long along ago told people to steer away from comments like this in a different debate thread but now you're doing it yourself. Perhaps you should take your own words into account, and try to be more careful and lash-out less in sensitive topics such as this one.

I think the continual perception I've been receiving from some of these posts (especially from this particular person) has been more than enough for me to fly off a little bit. But it's not like I've insulted them, because the way the post was expressed was what caused it. Having that said I do apologize, however my point still stands and I stand by what I said despite how that was perceived.

Stupid? No, I just think a great many are misguided and are often believing for the wrong reasons. A great lot of them were indoctrinated, which is a huge reason why so many people believe in the first place. Plenty of cultures got converted a while back, and they continue indoctrinating their culture/children/etc today through many methods. I frankly don't care if people believe or not, just like I don't care if people believe in dragons or unicorns. The problem lies when they're pushing those beliefs on others when they are unwanted, and also when they claim to KNOW there is a god (the "extremely sure there's a god" people you mentioned, I guess); gnostic theism is pointless because if someone actually knew there was a god AND provided proof, they'd deserve several serious scientific prizes for ending the god/no god debate. But... no such proof has been given, and "look at the world around you!" isn't proof (many of them love to throw that around).

I hardly believe indoctrination is the issue simply because there exist religious people on the internet (who are sometimes afraid to express themselves for fear of being looked down on; they really do have this fear and it is hard to back yourself up when you're backed against a wall).

However you have to understand that it states in many of their religious scripture that they have to be extremely sure of a God and that all doubt is purged. Indoctrination or not, it's apart of their religion and much of it states that you have to also try to convince others. Granted, it doesn't always work and I don't like it but I hold absolutely nothing against it because it's apart of what they believe and they feel it is their duty to save others. Indoctrination or not, proof or not, it's what they've always believed growing up and, as for people that I personally interact with on a day to day basis, yes they question it but it's their faith ultimately that wins over and they do find some other portion of scripture that answers their questions. You may not see it because you're involved with your own mindset; even I slip into the "that's not logical" mindset, but it's that lack of understanding and clarity which allows me to accept the fact that many are probably not indoctrinated. I've always heard that people are pretty weakly religious or not quite understanding of a religion until their 20s or 30s, which was the thing I've heard from many people who are religious right now, so it could be that the people you interact with on a day to day basis (younger people) aren't misguided so much as still malleable.

Also, the argument from majority means nothing to me. I don't care if most of the world believes and for how long they've believed. If they just believe in a god figure, once again, it doesn't really bother me. If they're going to believe ancient tales despite current scientific theories and are going to claim things like the Earth being 6,000 years old or existing on the back of a turtle, I'm going to wonder how seriously they got indoctrinated and how damaging it will be if they actively try to convert others.

I don't think most people believe in 6000 years, and if not that then they also don't know a lick of science simply because they've been held away from it. I don't think it's so much indoctrination as it is ignorance, but there are many people who see some parts of the Bible as metaphorical as opposed to literal. I'm not an expert on the subject so I'm not going to comment any further on this subject.

You do not disprove something because more people believe otherwise. A long time ago, most people (at least in Greek culture -- I can't speak for the rest of the world) believed the sun revolved around the Earth (many of them Christian theologians who saw how it contradicted their texts, actually). Well, looks like the minority was, in fact, correct. This may not be a supernatural analogy, but it's the same type of thing. Most people COULD be wrong. All it takes it evidence from one side or the other, whether it's a god, dragons, fairies, unicorns, etc.

That's not what my point is. My point is if you're going to disprove something at all, then you should find another way especially considering your exact arguments could have some sort of counterargument associated with them that's been thrown around repeatedly. This probably hasn't been the only religious debate on the internet everywhere, and the general perception of atheists in a religious debate is as aggressive and close minded so I do apologize in advance if I slip into this sort of assumption at points. Frankly, the past has not improved my perception of the way these kinds of debates can go, and I do apologize for taking it out on you.

I sincerely fail to see how any of this is "rude." I'm laying out some history for those who might not be familiar with it, I'm responding to logical fallacies with points I'm making, I'm making perfectly logical comparisons. If you don't feel that comparing dragons (once seen as gods, again) to a general Abrahamic or otherwise god is valid, well, that's really your opinion and you can have it. For me, though, and many other people, one mythical entity does not sit above the other as neither has evidence for it.

You weren't the one being rude, but the perception of the wording is what caused me to fly off simply because it's trivializing the full extent of the argument as well as the beliefs of many people by comparing their ultimate holy being to a yeti. I find it rude because it's also the belief system my entire family follows and they've done so without hurting anyone at all.

As for comparing it to dragons and unicorns, the comparison is definitely legitimate, but reread the original point made. It was made in an extremely dishonest way, as if to give an impression that religion is stupid because it can lead to the belief in dragons and unicorns, which is commonly believed to be a stupid thing to believe in. I did not put on my critical thinking cap to put up the connections, but I just wanted to say something slightly witty too, because I thought it would be somewhat amusing to say. Looks like the f word killed the tone. Historically, you are correct and I do see the point clearly now but I hardly believe that was the intent. If it was the intent, then the effort was too low.

I hope you understand my point and emotions a little bit better at the very least.

[Vixenite]

I have been nothing but reasonable throughout this conversation. I have never once attacked you personally, excluding me mentioning your tone, and even that was not an attack. You're making me feel uncomfortable even participating in this conversation because of the snide remarks you have repeatedly directed towards me. I've gone over my posts and again and I honestly can not see what I'm saying that makes me come off as rude. If it's about me saying god doesn't have any evidence .. that's going to happen in religion debates, and that's me attacking the premises of a religion, not you. This subject is touchy and I've done my best to respect that, however I do not feel that from you in return.