Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Farmerbob]

I suggest that we just stop circling the drain with Farmerbob, because it's not going to get us anywhere.

We can go plenty of places, provided that you remove the completely absurd and meaningless assertion that Agnosticism is a part of Atheism.

[Shambling Zombie]

Hehehe, I too never thought I'd see fundie Agnosticism. I too stand corrected.

[Micro102]

Well while farmer bob is arguing the same thing over and over again, everyone is giving the same answer.

But reading this, wouldn't that mean that Agnostics 1) simply can't make up their minds or 2) Don't know about any religion at all?

[Max White]

Stop being a completely ignorant schmuck.

Theists believe in a god.  Atheists do not.  Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve.  You can make any number of subgroupings and imaginary whatnots that you care to, but Atheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common.  Trying to pretend that they do is ignorant.

An agnostic is similar to an athiest in that they lack a diety or worship. The only differance between them is that one is sure about their lack of diety, the other is open minded if the correct evidence is given to them.

[Il Palazzo]

Stop being a completely ignorant schmuck.

Theists believe in a god.  Atheists do not.  Agnostics do not believe or disbelieve.  You can make any number of subgroupings and imaginary whatnots that you care to, but Atheism and Agnosticism have almost NOTHING in common.  Trying to pretend that they do is ignorant.

An agnostic is similar to an athiest in that they lack a diety or worship. The only differance between them is that one is sure about their lack of diety, the other is open minded if the correct evidence is given to them.

You either are saying that Dawkins wouldn't believe in a god if evidence of his existence would be presented to him, or that he(Dawkins) is not using the term Atheism properly.

[G-Flex]

Yeah, I don't get what Max White is trying to say. Even a strong atheist would probably agree, in most cases, that they would agree a god exists if proper evidence were given; they just don't think that evidence exists.

[Siquo]

Nobody decides against evidence. There's just people who decide because there's no evidence, and people who decide not to decide because there's no evidence. Can we now move on?

Back to the Catholic invention of the Big Bang, for instance?

[Il Palazzo]

What I can see here is two stances on ideas in general. Either one gives a degree of credence to an idea simply by the virtue of it being formulated and not disproven(agnosticism), or one gives credence to an idea only if it is proven(atheism).

duh, ninjaed.

Big Bang is Catholic?

[CoughDrop]

Nobody decides against evidence.

Plenty of people do, but yes, let's talk about the theory of the big bang until someone misinterprets the meaning of 'theory' and we all argue over semantics once again. It will all be interesting, nonetheless.

[Siquo]

Nobody decides against evidence.

Plenty of people do, but yes, let's talk about the theory of the big bang until someone misinterprets the meaning of 'theory' and we all argue over semantics once again. It will all be interesting, nonetheless.

Nope, nobody does. We just have different opinions on what "evidence" actually is.

Big Bang is Catholic?

Yes, the Big Bang was invented by a Belgian priest, and catholics are officially (as in, the pope said so) ok with both the BB theory and evolution. There's factions in christianity, as well

Funny: the Catholic church was initially less critical of BB theory than the scientists of that time (although that fits the whole "gullible" vs "sceptical" stereotypes again, which was exactly what I was trying to refute. Damn, I just mooted my own point. Why do I keep doing that?)

[Derekristow]

Funny: the Catholic church was initially less critical of BB theory than the scientists of that time (although that fits the whole "gullible" vs "sceptical" stereotypes again, which was exactly what I was trying to refute. Damn, I just mooted my own point. Why do I keep doing that?)

The Big Bang theory, with its definitive beginning to the universe, makes more sense for a religion than the steady state theory that was popular at the time.  It was the only one that fit in with their existing beliefs.

[Max White]

Yeah, I don't get what Max White is trying to say. Even a strong atheist would probably agree, in most cases, that they would agree a god exists if proper evidence were given; they just don't think that evidence exists.

And that's why more people are agnostic then they think.
You can't prove a negitive, and there is a stunning lack of evidence for a god as explained in many holy works, such as the bible, therefor agnostic is the nice reasonable choice.

Agnostic: Were here for you.

[Il Palazzo]

Funny: the Catholic church was initially less critical of BB theory than the scientists of that time (although that fits the whole "gullible" vs "sceptical" stereotypes again, which was exactly what I was trying to refute. Damn, I just mooted my own point. Why do I keep doing that?)

The Big Bang theory, with its definitive beginning to the universe, makes more sense for a religion than the steady state theory that was popular at the time.  It was the only one that fit in with their existing beliefs.

I don't know. When your diety is omnipotent, then it could just as well create any kind of universe.

[KaguroDraven]

This is only semi-on-topic, but when I die I'm going to laugh like hell if one of the 'barbarian' or 'pagan' religions was right, while all three Abrahamic religions are wrong.

[ECrownofFire]

This is only semi-on-topic, but when I die I'm going to laugh like hell if one of the 'barbarian' or 'pagan' religions was right, while all three Abrahamic religions are wrong.

Hey, be careful who you're talking around

But yes, if it turns out that we're all going to Hades... Would be strange (and rather amusing), to say the least.