Atheism vs Theism. bold move, let's see if it pays off.. ATHEISM vs THEISM Is Is A Simple guide to know what the hell you are.' iktf? , AITHEIST ! llooll I DENT whom are You
Upload
Login or register

Atheism vs Theism

Click to block a category:GamingPoliticsNewsComicsAnimeOther
 
Atheism vs Theism. bold move, let's see if it pays off.. ATHEISM vs THEISM Is Is A Simple guide to know what the hell you are.' iktf? , AITHEIST ! llooll I DENT

bold move, let's see if it pays off.

Tags: whom | are | You
ATHEISM vs THEISM Is Is
A Simple guide to know what the hell you are.'
iktf? , AITHEIST ! llooll
I DENT BELIEVE I DENT BEILEVE
ANY GED EXISTS, ANY EED EXISTS,
BUT I' m. NOT FIND I KNOW
CLAIMING; THATA- THEY DENT EXIST.
I BELIEVE I BELIEVE
THERE Is A aunt THERE IE A clout
BUT I' M NOT REALLY FIND I KNOW
SURE. IT Eon Ex: -atman
BE ‘EMELY aii; ;. IT MAKES PERFECT
mars if you mm is theri/ iid, that is hell tr mime but thm' t .. up. {Am Eras. -?
...
+1097
Views: 65485 Submitted: 09/26/2013
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (682)
[ 682 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#21 - skysailor
Reply +249 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I believe in God. It makes sense to me. I figure there may be plenty of different possibilities for God's form. If you don't believe in God, I don't mind as long as you're not a cunt about it.
User avatar #83 to #21 - tredbear
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
pics, or it never happened.
User avatar #157 to #21 - atoma
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I'm and Atheist that is pretty darn sure there is no such thing as a god.

I like arguing about it, I don't count arguing in as being a cunt.
#187 to #157 - bigrog
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I really doubt you like to argue about it as much as you like to have a medium to rant about your beliefs and maybe rack up another "win" in your internet argument victory column. An argument implies that you actually care what the other person has to say and are actually affected by what they have to say. Very few people actually give a **** about what a random stranger on the internet has to say. Though I could be wrong about all this. Though I doubt it.

You need to login to view this link
(Refer to number 3 on list)

User avatar #231 to #187 - mylazy
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Great advice on there.
#235 to #231 - bigrog
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Definitely. Probably the best article I've ever read. Really Changed the way I think. It's the reason I've done by best to retire from internet arguments.
User avatar #713 to #187 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/01/2013) [-]
I don't think we should damn ourselves because of what we should expect
#714 to #713 - bigrog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/01/2013) [-]
what do mean?
User avatar #715 to #714 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/01/2013) [-]
You're saying that few people actually give a **** about what a random stranger has to say on the internet. It's what you would expect and the only reason you extend that to yourself or whomever you're speaking to is because it's what you've observed so far. Kinda unfair to damn all of your possible arguments because of what you expect
#716 to #715 - bigrog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/01/2013) [-]
No, there are a few who are interested and what to advance and learn I am aware of this. But they are few, and not worth the majority who just want to rant, let off steam, or use the site and there own personal medium for there anger. And even worse than them are those who do it to get some sort of imaginary win. Those who will do everything in there power to get in the last comment because in there minds even if it just because the other person is tired of there **** they will still count it as a win. Those who will spend weeks just repeating themselves and despite being openly ignorant about the subject will continue to argue just to stroke there ego. I spent over a weak and a half arguing with a bastard named teranin over religion. He openly admitted to not have even read the whole bible and was essentially ignorant (pretty sure he is the one I am thinking of, been in a few of these with different people) and no matter how many times we kept repeating ourselves or I kept trying to end it he did everything in his power to keep it going and me being a total dumbass kept falling for it. By the end funnyjunk wasn't even letting me reply any more, i was pissed off, and wasted hours of my life which i will never get back. I have been in a **** load of argument just like that . He didn't give a **** about what i had to say, he just wanted another chance to intellectually defeat another dumb christian. And by the end of it I was so pissed i didn't give a **** about what he had to say either. Its not worth the time and the effort. I can count the civil open minded debates I've had on the internet on one hand. I've accepted that no one cares about the opinions of strangers, or at least most don't. What people really want is either a free therapist to listen to there problems and grievances or another way to stroke there ego. I was just sick and tired to feeding that machine.

BTW sorry about the really damn overly long post. I like to write and can get carried away
User avatar #720 to #716 - lamarisagoodname
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/01/2013) [-]
And I like to listen to said folks that write and get carried away. It's tough to avoid being cynical in today's world but it's not as bad as you'd expect. Also, the best thing about religion / science is that if you're correct then you're correct, proving it to someone else doesn't make it any more or less right. Don't waste your time trying to debate with those with their heads so far up their asses they can only hear themselves (I'm muslim, so I can relate to what you mean)
#717 to #716 - teranin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/01/2013) [-]
few issues with that, bignog. I have read the whole bible, and would not admit to a lie. The argument ended with you asserting a 4,000 year time difference as "around the same time" in a biblical sense, proving you're a ******* idiot who had no idea what the **** they were talking about. We were done, because you did the exact same thing you just complained about others doing.

Next time you decide to include me in a long winded rant, try to at least be honest about what the **** you are saying.
#718 to #717 - bigrog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/01/2013) [-]
Never said difinitevly it was you, said it might have been someone else, i have been in a few arguments with jackasses and one did openly admit to being ignorant. And thank you for proving my point by missing the entire point of the post and throwing out a bunch of juvenile insults. And i was accurate about why it ended. Because by the end all we were doing was repeating ourselves and had reached and impasse. Neither of us were going anywhere. And if you had actually read my post you would noticed I admitted to being just as bad at the time. And as far as I am concerned besides that one mistake which i openly said i might have the wrong person every single thing i said was right. You didn't give a **** about what i or anybody had to say. You are just a bitter asshole looking to put another one in your imaginary win column to stroke your own ego. I use to be just as bad but at least I've bettered myself.
User avatar #719 to #718 - teranin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/01/2013) [-]
fair enough, sorry about my reaction, felt like you were talking ****.
#721 to #719 - bigrog
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(10/02/2013) [-]
yeah, funny what you find out when you actually read. Stops you from coming off like an asshole.
User avatar #499 to #187 - atoma
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Stereotypes can be used to make it easier to make guesses but I think you judged a bit to quickly.
www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4655958/Muh+Gravity/211#211
You're not going to call this a proper argument?
I learned a lot about muslims during that argument with lamarisagoodname.He was fun to argue with since he was pretty intelligent. Due to it being funnyjunk it's a bit unorganized so it might become a bit difficult to read in the right order since we basically had "two conversations" with each other.
User avatar #285 to #157 - thinegame
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
What defines a god for you?
User avatar #505 to #285 - atoma
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
So far religion has brought out two different types of gods, those who use magic to be pretty darn powerful(Zeus, Thor, etc) and those who are downright almighty and using magic too(The Christian god). So within my definition a god would be impossible. There could perhaps be god-like creatures out there for all we know. I highly doubt they would be as powerful or anything like Q from Star Trek though.
#338 to #157 - rhinocerous **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#241 to #21 - anon id: 3d6815ac
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I don't believe in any sort of god and I know for sure it is wrong. I am not saying that it is wrong to believe in something you think is true however
User avatar #98 to #21 - ompalomper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
i like you.

personally i don't really know. i don't believe there is a god that can affect us in any way because that doesn't make sense to me. what i know is that with death we cease to exist but what i hope is that there is something equivalent to a soul that will either live on or get reincarnated somewhere within the Universe including the multi-verse. i mean, im hoping here, why not hope that i might go to the pokémon universe when i die?.

TL;DR i live like i morally feel like i should and while i don't think there is a god i hope that there is something after death
User avatar #164 to #98 - atoma
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
>something equivalent to a soul

If we ever were to find out what it is that makes us alive we could easily call it a soul.
User avatar #409 to #21 - patrickthenazarene
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
i am a deist
User avatar #412 to #21 - tonkkax
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
A god related to religion or just some random god?
#517 to #21 - gerggerg
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
there is so many ways I can be an asshole
User avatar #533 to #517 - dragontamers
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
*There are so many ways
#534 to #533 - gerggerg
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
"There is so many-" works too...
#599 to #21 - kez
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
It doesnt make any sense and I think most people are religious just because of the afterlife thing.

But that said I dont really care at all so have a nice life.
User avatar #179 to #21 - createdjustnow
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
had a long conversation with someone on my school bus, both of us being the honors students. we both argued our perspectives on creationism, and in the end we had 12 different ideas, and we weren't sure whether or not we were arguing religion...

one of these theories was that since cave drawings were found that looked like astronauts, i explained that it's a possibility that future generations produce an engine that moves faster than light, making time travel a possibility. and went on to say that a crash could wipe the technology and leave them stranded on pre-dated earth with barely any useful tools. and thus leaving their descendants to repopulate the planet and they develop technology and repeat the cycle.


fun day
#301 to #21 - thesinful
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I don't believe in God but believe you can believe whatever you want. Though if it's something I find particularly silly, I'll probably laugh at it a bit.

I also have a troublesome tendency to get angry when people attribute mine, theirs, or someone else's accomplishments to God. It just makes me feel like they're marginalizing the work you put into it. "God helped you get that job." No, I applied to literally every job I could find for roughly 3 months. I asked friends and family if they knew about job openings. That's how I got that job.

TLR I believe that thanking God for everything that goes right in your life undermines your own efforts.
User avatar #348 to #301 - skysailor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I definitely believe this too. I think it was either Bruce Almighty or Evan Almighty in which Morgan Freeman played God and said that when a man prays for courage, he doesn't simply give him courage, but gives him the opportunity to be courageous.
#509 to #21 - edwardyeap
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
God might be Trevor for all you know.
God might be Trevor for all you know.
#58 to #21 - redthumbmaster
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I don't believe in God. It doesn't make sense to me. I figure there are many other possibilities other than God. If you believe in God, I don't mind, even if you are a cunt about it. Even though I don't believe in what you say I will fight to death for your right to say it.
User avatar #297 to #58 - VLG
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Voltaire?
#308 to #297 - rustiphor
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
You are correct sir!
You are correct sir!
User avatar #120 to #58 - comedytrash
Reply -12 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
That's fedorable. why can't atheists shut up about it. you don't believe in god. get over yourself.
User avatar #160 to #120 - redthumbmaster
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
So skysailor gets his say, but I shouldn't? If he gets to express his thoughts then so do I.
#621 to #160 - comedytrash
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
its because you have a hole channel dedicated to it get a grip. we dont want to hear it. if you were half descend you wouldnt say anything. pic related
User avatar #590 to #120 - fizzor
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
And what you said was just plain retarded. Everyone, believers and non-believers alike, have the right to express their opinions. They just should do it in a civilized manner. So sit the **** down and shut the **** up before you embarrass yourself any more.
User avatar #22 to #21 - spikethepony
Reply +34 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Is that....
Holy ****, you're not being an asshole online! INTERNET POLICE! INTERNET POLICE! THIS MAN ISN'T SHOVING HIS BELIEFS (or lack thereof) DOWN MY THROAT!!
#60 to #22 - skysailor
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Apologies, I forgot that this was the internet. Allow me to reiterate my statement with the current context in mind.    
   
   
**** YOU, ASS HAT. GOD EXISTS. JUST BECAUSE THE BIBLE SHOWS GOD IN ONE WAY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE HAS TO EXIST LIKE THAT, YOU CLOSED MINDED ****.
Apologies, I forgot that this was the internet. Allow me to reiterate my statement with the current context in mind.


**** YOU, ASS HAT. GOD EXISTS. JUST BECAUSE THE BIBLE SHOWS GOD IN ONE WAY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT HE HAS TO EXIST LIKE THAT, YOU CLOSED MINDED ****.
#49 to #22 - reaperriley
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Well.... we can shove other things down your throat.
Well.... we can shove other things down your throat.
#70 to #49 - ninjabaconone
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Sauce
User avatar #99 to #70 - freakstorm
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
bro i think shes the chick from teens react...
User avatar #89 to #70 - ompalomper
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
sorry but i don't think she stars in any porn
User avatar #94 to #70 - studsper
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
She's like 15
User avatar #194 to #94 - ggggotmethisname
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
your point?
User avatar #268 to #94 - hydraetis
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
16 by now.
#383 to #268 - guythatagrees
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
What's that? she's Eighteen? Oh great good.
#552 to #383 - darshian
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
User avatar #608 to #70 - hit **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Lia marie johnson
#396 to #49 - johnnygoldmane **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
W-why would you torture us with a gif like that when she's only 16?  I'm not even mad, I just love this reaction gif
W-why would you torture us with a gif like that when she's only 16? I'm not even mad, I just love this reaction gif
User avatar #636 to #396 - reaperriley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Legal for me.
#319 to #22 - yaybacon
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
User avatar #45 - mutzaki
Reply +119 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Posts like this make gnostic atheists look like dicks.
#579 to #45 - dwooodbear
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Did you see it too?
sorry for my fantastic paint skills
User avatar #86 to #45 - ningyoaijin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
They... They are. The existence of God is, due to the nature of what God is, impossible to either prove or disprove. So if you think you know one way or the other, you're an arrogant dick.
User avatar #143 to #86 - nervaaurelius
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I see this argument a lot but the things is though is that there are many things that you can't be 100 percent sure of that you decide to come to a conclusion for anyway. Just because you are not completely sure of something does not mean you cannot come to a conclusion. If that was so then there would be tons of things in your day to day life that you wouldn't be able to come to a conclusion on.
User avatar #236 to #143 - mylazy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I think the point they are making is that by not being 100% sure you are not arrogant. As soon as you become 100% sure you are either dead or arrogant.
User avatar #237 to #236 - nervaaurelius
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Well is there really people who say they are 100 percent sure? I mean I don't believe that's how "gnostic atheists" go about.
User avatar #240 to #237 - mylazy
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
At any point where you claim you know something, you are claiming to be 100% sure. You may not mean to claim it, but the fact is that you cannot know something if there is even a single sliver of doubt. So unless there is no doubt you cannot rightly claim to know something.
#189 to #143 - cockineveryorifice
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I think what people are trying to say that coming to a conclusion is not the same as knowing. Therefore the term gnostic shouldn't really be applied in matters of faith or opinion, such as religion.
User avatar #130 to #86 - quantumlegend
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
This, very much this.
If there is no proof of something being one way or the other, then by claiming either as absolute truth is simply wrong.
Sure, you can believe there is or is not a god, but refusing to consider the possibility of the alternative is simply being arrogant.
#91 to #45 - nehger **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
on the internet they mostly are
#214 to #45 - anon id: ee1e83e3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
#that'sthepoint
#273 to #45 - thinkwithportals
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Right? just look at him. look at that ******* sweater. and that beard. and those glasses. you don't even need the dialog to know he's probably an asshole
Right? just look at him. look at that ******* sweater. and that beard. and those glasses. you don't even need the dialog to know he's probably an asshole
#388 to #45 - cockandballz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Thats cuz they are
User avatar #572 to #45 - frenchtoastftw
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Found the gnostic atheist.
User avatar #613 to #572 - mutzaki
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Well yeah, you did.
User avatar #573 to #45 - anonymoose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Because gnostic atheists are dicks.
User avatar #122 to #45 - akkere
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Quite a few of them are. Look at r/atheism.
Just like how quite a few of gnostic theists are dicks.
#463 to #122 - whargarbler
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
>r/atheism   
   
14 year old kids trying to look cool by being edgy is not the atheist community. That's just r/atheism.
>r/atheism

14 year old kids trying to look cool by being edgy is not the atheist community. That's just r/atheism.
User avatar #469 to #463 - akkere
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
r/atheism also consists of the stereotypical neckbeard-fedora types and even some turtle-neck hipster atheists like the one emulated in this comic.

And it's not just r/atheism - FJ went through a phase of religious **** storming where people like the one I described came out to post nothing but "**** Religion and anyone who has one".
#131 to #45 - dwarfman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Because they are.
Because they are.
User avatar #306 to #45 - OMGNIGGERZ
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Gnostic atheists make gnostic atheists look like dicks
User avatar #163 to #45 - YllekNayr
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Same applies to gnostic theists.
User avatar #245 to #45 - rmdx
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
well most of them are

but i might be wrong
User avatar #151 to #45 - noopinion
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
They are dicks.
#50 to #45 - graytimber
Reply +26 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Seeing how the artist depicted the people in the picture, I'm pretty sure a point was, unintentionally or intentionally, to show that gnostic atheists and theists are closed-minded.

I'm not offended, as a gnostic atheist, that they did that. Some are actually that bad, but I'm pretty sure most of us just don't believe in god and leave it like that.
User avatar #62 to #50 - lordmoldywart
Reply -9 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
But you're claiming to know something that can't be proven/unproven, which makes you arrogant
#69 to #62 - graytimber
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I'm actually not claiming anything. I don't go out into crowds of religious people and shout "Your god doesn't exist!"

I just don't believe in whichever god. Under the requirements for arrogant put on me, technically, everyone is arrogant.
User avatar #78 to #69 - lordmoldywart
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
No, my point is you claim to be a gnostic atheist, meaning you KNOW that no God exists, which is impossible as the existence of any God has neither been proven nor unproven. That is what makes you arrogant. I never suggested that you had to go into a crowd of people and express your beliefs publically to be arrogant, not at all.
#80 to #78 - graytimber
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I understand that, and the second part still applies.
User avatar #81 to #80 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
No, the second part doesn't apply at all, the requirements for arrogant to be put on you only apply to people that claim to KNOW something that is IMPOSSIBLE to be KNOWN. Only gnostic theists and gnostic atheists, so no, not everyone is arrogant.
User avatar #456 to #81 - wickedfreckles
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Arrogant
1. having or revealing an exaggerated sense of ones own importance or abilities.
i.e. That guy on FJ who tries to call everyone arrogant is an arrogant cunt.
User avatar #535 to #456 - lordmoldywart
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I'm not the one claiming to know something that can't be known, his beliefs fit the definition perfectly as he has an exaggerated sense of his own abilities (claiming to know something that can't be known).

That backfired on you a bit, didn't it
User avatar #330 to #81 - mrbuu
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
he isn't arrogant stop being a silly cunt muffin.
User avatar #538 to #330 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Just read wickedfreckles' comment, #466, graytimber's actions fit the definition perfectly. Having an exaggerated sense of his own abilities, by claiming to know something that can't be known, he is being arrogant.
User avatar #584 to #538 - babyanalraper
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Maybe he reasons in ways like: Lack of proof of God means, until evidence suggests otherwise, no God. Lack of proof of ninja standing behind me means, until evidence suggests otherwise, no ninja behind me. There is a possibility, but a very very small one, and thus he claims to know that no god exist. Or maybe he just knows that religion is fake/wrong, and that is actually proveable and true.
User avatar #589 to #584 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Religion has nothing to do with it really, we're just talking about a deity, but no named deity in particular. There could be a deity that no one in history has ever heard of. No one knows...
User avatar #623 to #589 - babyanalraper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I'm just have theories. However, while at the topic of improvable deities... If there is a deity that there is no evidence of, then there is practically no deity. If you can't prove the deity it can't affect us in any way, and therefore, albeit possible theoretically, it doesn't practically exist.
User avatar #634 to #623 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Just because we can't prove a deity exists, that doesn't mean there we should just assume there isn't one. Back before microscopes were invented, we couldn't prove that our body was made up of billions and billions of cells, we couldn't prove that every observable thing in the universe was made up of atoms... Who knows, maybe in future we'll invent something that helps us prove/disprove the existence of a deity.

I don't like to use the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" phrase, but it does apply to deities
User avatar #635 to #634 - babyanalraper
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
But weren't we speaking of the improvable deity?
User avatar #639 to #635 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
No, we were talking about the unknown deity
#466 to #81 - anon id: b600b696
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I have no idea why you're getting thumbed down.

It's impossible to know something that can't be proven (at least can't be proven yet) and claiming you do know it makes you claiming the impossible hence makes you arrogant.
#88 to #81 - graytimber
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, I didn't log on to FunnyJunk to have a debate on whether or not I'm arrogant.

I mean this with real sincerity, I hope have a lovely day.
#523 to #81 - morkotlap
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
It's not impossible to know. While the existence of god per se can be sretched to fit the proven knowledge, it's merit can not. Religion stands on many premises, such as existence and meaningful definition of concepts such as self, entity and existence. When one or more of these concepts lose merit, so does the concept of god.

And while science have not proven "whether god exists", it has proven, via psychology that ego is just social awareness tool that can be turned off. Via neural nets that mind itself is just a mathematical construct, via philosophy that definition of entity or existence is arbitrary. And when the definition of being is arbitrary, so becomes the definition of supreme being. A desperate endeavor to see the universe with a comforting mask of a human face.

So am I arrogant for refusing to consider a concept that conflicts phenomena I can repeat?
User avatar #528 to #523 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
It is impossible to know. There is no evidence to prove a God exists, nor is there evidence to prove no God exists.

You described an idea (a concept as you admit), not facts. You can't claim to know something based on an idea
#531 to #528 - morkotlap
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Everything you claim to know are just ideas. There are no facts. Only interpretations.

When god's existence conflicts what I know, I am safe to claim that I know that god does not exist.
User avatar #537 to #531 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
What have I claimed to know so far that can't be taken as fact?

Keeping in mind I haven't mentioned a specific God from any mainstream religion so far, and don't intend that to be the subject of our debate. I'm just talking about any general deity, maybe one that we have never heard of before, maybe one that we have. As far as either of us know, if there is a God, this God may not conflict what you know at all, yet again he may conflict what you know. No one knows, and therefore you'd be wrong to claim anything about the existence/non-existence of this God as we know nothing about it, if it even exists.
#541 to #537 - morkotlap
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Yet i explained why the concept of god/deity is doubtful for me from the very definition. If it can be called a god, it does contradict what I know. And since I don't have any evidence for god's existence and plenty of evidence for what i hold true, I must conclude god in any form does not exist.
User avatar #543 to #541 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
What you hold true, I assume is the big bang theory? That before that happened, there was no matter in the universe and therefore no time for a God to exist? If there is a deity we'd assume they're the one that puts the laws of physics (matter/time) into place, and therefore don't have to follow these guidelines, correct? If that's not what you referring to, please tell me because you haven't as of yet. Because the second part of #523 doesn't prove/disprove anything, as the facts behind psychological science are very risky to take to heart as we know so little about our psychy
#549 to #543 - morkotlap
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Basically, the concept of god claims that there is mind behind the reality. And since we don't have better definition of mind than "human-like behaviour", I don't think it's reasonable to award this quality to the reality.
User avatar #577 to #549 - lordmoldywart
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
That is true, but is not factual evidence behind the disproving of a deity, it is an idea. That's all I'm saying
#622 to #577 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Whether is the flaw theoretical or empiric does not matter in deciding whether or not is the phenomena ********. Am I arrogant for finding the very concept of god absurd?
User avatar #627 to #622 - lolollo
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
While it's understandable to not believe in the existence of a God based on the lack of proof, it's just as assumative to say that the same lack of proof is proof possitive that God definitely doesn't exist. It's extremely closed minded.

How far do you think science would be today if people just glossed over ideas and hypothesis that didn't have any data to support them yet?

Like the existence of the atom. Matter has always been comprised of atoms, yet back before we could observe matter than small, it would have been silly to say that atoms existed, yet saying that the lack of empirical proof meant they didn't exist would have been just as incorrect.

Make sense?
#648 to #627 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I never cited the lack of empirical proof alone. Concepts can be held true without empirics supproting them (e.g the whole Mathematics).

When two concepts contradict each other then by holding one of them true, you must also hold the other false. At least within the boundaries of logic where the truthiness of the first hold. When I see proofs of concepts that contradict the concept of god and no proof that would support the concept of god I must simply hold the very concept of god as meaningless.

To use your very metaphor, greek atomism was built around the concept of classical elements. Without it, whole definition of atoms would be meaningless at the time. And so is current definition of god.
User avatar #678 to #648 - lolollo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
I'm assuming the two contradicting ideas are "God exists" and "God doesn't exist." Here's the thing, you say that you don't know which one is true until you have proof for either side. You don't have to pick one and then say the other is false, It's an incredibly rigid way of thinking, especially since there are multiple definitions for God as well, even more than the stereotypical theological ideologies will teach you.

It's like politics, you don't have to pick either side, you choose to be independent because both sides are incredibly misguided viewpoints.
#691 to #678 - morkotlap
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
Yet when I have proof for one view (see earlier discussion) I see nothing wrong with holding the opposite false.
User avatar #698 to #691 - lolollo
0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
You don't have proof for either view though. You can't use a lack of proof for one side as proof positive for the opposition. That's a fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
#711 to #678 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
I have no quarrel with omnipotence and omniscience. The universe can be described as a all-knowing and all-powerful state automaton. The thing I have problem with are the human-like behaviours (such as mind, emotions and such) that is commonly atributed to it and actualy are part of the definition. God without mind is no different from atheist's vast and uncaring universe.
User avatar #712 to #711 - lolollo
0 123456789123345869
(09/30/2013) [-]
The thing you have a quarrel with makes no difference on the potential existence of a God who is simply defined as having omniscience, and omnipotence then.
#703 to #678 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
There are many, but to cite one of the simple one: The whole bible is cut and pasted from Iranian and Egyptian mythology. This supports the viewpoint that concept of god is a meme like any other, which conflicts any relation with supreme being.

My whole argument before stood on claim, that even the term supreme mind is in conflict with conception of god as there is no better definition of mind than "human-like behaviour" and I am pretty sure that the universe is far more complex than that.
User avatar #710 to #703 - lolollo
0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
All that does is support the claim that those particular God's can't possibly exist, but not that an omniscient, omnipotent God doesn't exist. Those stories are just interpretations of how they think an omnipotent/scient would think and behave, but realize that we're all imperfect, and biased as hell.

It makes sense to be sceptical that the Middle Eastern God Allah would favor middle easterns so much, so says the middle easterns, because that's subject to so much bias.

like...all of the bias.

But that doesn't mean a God who's simply omnipotent and omniscient doesn't exist, just that God as defined by the middle easterns probably doesn't exist. That's part of the reason atheists probably seem so annoying, we all know how easy it is to debunk a God as defined by a particular sect of people, but no one seems to care about trying to disprove a God where the only criteria he/she would meet is omnipotence, and omniscience.
User avatar #633 to #622 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
You'd be arrogant to claim you know a God doesn't exist. You may strongly believe a God doesn't exist, which would be fine, but you can't claim to know the unknowable.
#642 to #633 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
By the same logic you cannot claim to know anything as you can always be just within some kind of dream or whatever. Anything is unknowable to some degree. Thus knowing must mean holding something true with the information i now possess. How is that arrogant?
User avatar #681 to #642 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
To some degree yes, anything is unknowable, but some more than others. In the case of comparing the existence/non-existence of a deity to whether we're all in one big dream, one is much more observable than the other, i.e. the latter

To know something you need facts, there are no facts behind neither the existence nor the non-existence of a deity, therefore you cannot claim to know either way. It is arrogant to claim to know either way, as you are exaggerating your own abilities in claiming to know the unknowable. That is how it is arrogant

#709 to #681 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
Then this might be the point of disagreement. I think that the existence of ponies underneath the surface of the moon would contradict enough rules we made from observation on earth to elicit valid claim of "knowing" such thing cannot and does not exist. People claim to "know" far less probable things without sounding arrogant. Good example is almost anything claimed to be "known" about other people personal things.

Also, the greek atomism was largerly accepted in classical greece. Which cannot be said about europe from 18th century to this day, since greek atomism was based on classical elements(fire, earth, water and air) and geometry. Not a single postulate of classical atomism is consistent with early enlightenment atomic theories and is not consistent with today's quantum physics.

So yes, the ancient greek were wrong even if the name of their concept survived into the modern era. And the enlightement scientist were not arrogant to disprove their claim even without an electron microscope.
#707 to #681 - morkotlap
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#706 to #681 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
I said abrahamic one, because your criteria of a sole creator, ruler and judge fits only the god of jews, muslims and christians. There are far more complicated deistic systems than that. But for the sake of an argument, let's call abrahamic god our general God.

I know what you were getting at, and I hoped i showed with the ecosystem parable, how i feel about existence about god.

You still can judge the merit of an idea without observation. For example I know there are no little pink ponies living on the surface of the moon eating moon sugar without ever observing one. And I say so with great degree of certainity because while I never seen a pink pony, I know something about animal morphology and astrophysics. Their existence conflicts almost everything I know about this world, so to reckon them possible, I'd also have to, by the same measure, reckon all my knowledge a lie. And while the possibility exists, it's in the same group as the "everything is a dream" scenario, which, when accounted would make impossible to claim to know anything.
User avatar #708 to #706 - lordmoldywart
0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
An idea may have merit yes, but merit alone, without observation, doesn't constitute it to be fact, like the existence/non-existence of God. As regards to pink ponies, we have observed the surface of the moon, and unless there's some giant government conspiracy, no pink ponies have been reported. However, underneath the moons surface? Who knows, maybe these pink ponies have evolved to no longer need a respiratory system. It may sound absurd, but the idea of atoms was absurd before the invention of the microscope, so was the idea that we actually evolve around the sun - not the other way around.
#704 to #681 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
Yet till an observation is made, god is not a fact that can be proven/disproven by observation. It is only an idea. A concept, that makes people make wild predictions, neither of them testable.

So we are talking the abrahamic god.

To continue your analogy, I would claim, that the question of whether there is or is not a plant life is meaningless, since the plant is by definition descendant of earth algae. It might sound petty, but the possible implications are grand enough to deserve it. The closest meaningful question would be something along the lines "Is there something similar to an ecosystem?".

And I have the same problem with existence of god. It is too specific even in the most spread definition. In our analogy it would be pretty much like seeing the exoplanet in habitable zone and asking questions like "What fur color do have the bears up there? How long are the trekky green aliens head-tentacles?".

There is an absurdly small chance that there actualy are such, but the uncertainity is far bellow the treshhold of "knowing". (About the same that your whole life is a well scripted TV play or something along these lines)
User avatar #705 to #704 - lordmoldywart
0 123456789123345869
(09/29/2013) [-]
At the moment, God is just an idea yes, but there is a chance it may be true, and a chance it may not be, so you cannot claim one way or the other

And for the record, I've been talking about God in a general sense, I haven't been talking about any particular God, because chances are if there is God it won't be the God like in any of the mainstream religions.

Ok, and ecosystem then, you know what I was getting at though

Is the definition of God in the general sense really that specific? Sure, the Abrahamic/Christian God may be specific, but I'd prefer it if we just talk about God in a general sense. And in that general sense, a God is defined quite simply as creator and ruler of the Universe, and is the source of all moral authority. I'm sure if you break all of those aspects down it can become specific, but at face value the definition is very simple. God creates, God rules, that's all there is to it.

What I was getting at in my last point was until we observe something no one can claim to know its existence/non-existence. Because before then, we don't have evidence enough to claim either way, sure we can be quite or really sure or something, but it is still just an idea until we observe it.
#695 to #681 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
As i said before, there is no meaningful division between facts and ideas. There are only interpretations of empirics that are more or less complex. As with my parable with mathemathics, I stand by my statement, that concept can be theoreticaly disproven the same way it can be empiricaly. It's even stronger, since empirics can be always attributed to chance, whereas theoretical disproval is not dependant on observation.

But this is not even the case, since I clearly stated that the definition of god in the broadest sense is not compatible with my life experience, hence there are plenty of "facts" to support it.
User avatar #697 to #695 - lordmoldywart
0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
The meaningful division between facts and ideas is that facts are proven claims that have been backed up by evidence. Ideas however, whilst some can be backed up by evidence, others can't. Unlike facts, not all ideas can be proven/unproven, like the idea of a God for example. You cannot claim fact either way because there is no evidence that we possess that can back up either claim.

The definition of God that we're using I thought would be incredibly clear. A creator and ruler of the Universe, and source of all moral authority. No life experience can prove the existence or non-existence of said God, and thus cannot be claimed as fact.

You keep using the word empiric, but I don't think you're using it in the correct way. An empiric is a practitioner in a branch of science, who relies solely on observation and experimentation to carry out their work/research. And from what I gather from the context of your usage of the word, you weren't talking about a person.

In my next point I am going to assume that by empiric, you meant observation, and discuss my point based around your use of the word.

>"It's even stronger, since empirics can be always attributed to chance, whereas theoretical disproval is not dependant on observation."

Yes theoretical disproval is not dependant on observation, so how can you trust it? Proving or disproving something theoretically opens it up to the chance of being proven/disproven the other way in future. If we were to claim that a particular plant (whatever it may be called) from the coral reef is of a yellow colour, we could take a sample of the plant and observe its colour and claim to know that its colour is yellow. However, if we were to claim to know that there was plantlife on a planet in a galaxy millions of light years away, simply because we observed that planets radiation signature and believed that it could support life,we would be wrong to do so, for we have not observed its surface (to check for said plantlife).
#690 to #681 - morkotlap
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
What "facts" do i need to know to say that there is no ratio of circumference of the circle and it's radius (as it's irrational). While you may say there now exists the irrational ratio, before this was known, the broadest definition of ratio was a pair of number. And similarily I claim that there is nothing that would fit within broadest definiton of god. I do not need facts to theoreticaly disprove something. Else the math would not work.
User avatar #693 to #690 - lordmoldywart
0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
Without facts or evidence to backup your idea, it remains an idea, it can not be known either way because you don't have the information to set an answer in stone. And you're seriously going to debate that? Really?

You can't prove or disprove anything without having facts/evidence to back up your claim. This in itself is a fact, and cannot be disputed, no matter how hard you try. I could claim that we are the only galaxy in the universe and that all the other galaxies we see is just the milky way playing tricks on our telescopes. Apparently I don't need facts to backup my claim, so theoretically it's true.
User avatar #423 to #81 - guitarnigger
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
come on man not all gnostic theists/atheists have to be arrogant just because theyre gnostic, they start to be arrogant at the point they start to shout it out loud to everyone, believing you're smarter. You can just believe in god/believe there is no god and keep that to yourself (maybe say it from time to time when the topic's up, but not bragging)
User avatar #540 to #423 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
If they claim to know something that can't be known, they have an exaggerated sense of their own ability, and therefore fit the definition of arrogant, re: #456
#3 - empithree
Reply +87 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
#328 to #3 - mrawesomeman
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
The agnostics are just like "What is the deal with airline food?"

Here, Jesus says "DEAL WITH IT"
#588 to #328 - brenton
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I literally do not have a single clue what you are talking about.
#48 - zyketor
Reply +75 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I'm Agnostic. Plain Agnostic.   
   
I don't know, I don't think anyone still living on Earth can know. That is all I believe in regards to religion.
I'm Agnostic. Plain Agnostic.

I don't know, I don't think anyone still living on Earth can know. That is all I believe in regards to religion.
User avatar #165 to #48 - YllekNayr
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
That's agnostic atheism. If you don't have a positive belief in a god, you lack a belief in a god. That's atheism. Atheism isn't believing there isn't a god. It's just not actively believing in a god.
User avatar #65 to #48 - edemylove **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Actually, agnostics are people who believe in that something exist, but human brain is too simple to understand it.
User avatar #71 to #65 - edemylove **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Sorry, my poor English skills backfired. What I meant to say is that in our wake, human brain will not know whetr there is a deity or not.
User avatar #76 to #71 - edemylove **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
****, not that, I am a little drunk and not a native english speaker so please forgive me , agnostic is a person who is neutral in any form of devotion, there are strong and weak agnostics, strong agnostics are all like "I cannot say that if there's a deity or not, but neither can you" and weak agnsotics are all like " I cannot say that if there's a deity or not, but maybe one day we will find out"
User avatar #79 to #76 - edemylove **User deleted account**
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
**** AGNOSTICS, I am sweating now beacuase I don't know how to explain them.
#113 to #79 - zyketor
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Which is all the more stupid because you essentially just said exactly what I already said in 3 different ways.
User avatar #564 to #113 - edemylove **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Yeah, I was kind of drunk. Enjoy yourself sir.
User avatar #229 to #76 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
dude, read the post. Gnostic and agnostic are descriptions of belief, not beliefs themselves. A gnostic person is sure of their belief, while an agnostic person is unsure.

Take an intro to religion class dude
#128 to #76 - anon id: 7fa7f448
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
what if you have views on both strong and weak agnostics. like the whole "I cannot say that if there's a deity or not, but neither can you, but one day we may find out"
User avatar #385 to #48 - rainbowtacos
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
My thought is "Do what ever the **** you want, believe in what ever the **** you want. Just don't hurt or abuse other people and I don't give a ****."
User avatar #444 to #48 - nitsuan
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I would have to say I am agnostic theist. Some of it may come from me wanting to believe in some form of higher power to light up this dull existence, but I also feel like if there is a divine force in the universe it is beyond our comprehension and science can not simply just prove it wrong or right. I am also open to the idea that there may be nothing in the end and we are all really just a miracle of life. Regardless, I think they only way we will ever truly know is once we die. If you die and wake up in some after life, there you go! If you die and umm...well...nothing happens....that too answers the question, but sadly you will never be able to acknowledge or spread the answer.
#141 to #48 - ronnorc
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
#87 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply -18 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I'm an Apatheist

mfw religious debates
#103 to #87 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
MFW people think titles like apatheist and agnostic mean they aren't a theist or an atheist.

Most apatheists I come across are atheist.
#123 to #103 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Dude, I'm not saying religion is wrong, I just don't give a **** if it is or not.

God existing bothers me none, same applied to if he doesn't exist.

P.S - Praise the sun
User avatar #134 to #123 - noblexfenrir
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
What? I was saying it's annoying when I ask if someone is an atheist or a theist they say "I'm agnostic" or "I'm apatheist" when these don't replace being atheist/theist.
#138 to #134 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Well yeah, seeing as religion can only be split into two main archetypes, Theism and Atheism.
Although not everyone takes the complete values from these, which is where we get subtypes from, eg; Agnosticism, Monotheism, Apatheism, Animism, Panentheism.

People don't substitute saying that they're theistic or nontheistic, they're just telling you exactly what they believe.

"Dude, are you religious?"
"Nah, I'm agnostic, I'm still waiting on definitive proof"

Oh, and you sir, are an asshole for being so narrow minded.

User avatar #153 to #138 - noblexfenrir
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Complete values...what? Theism and Atheism are very simplistic terms that don't mean anything outside of their base definition.

Also the situation I was talking about was more like:

"Dude, are you theist or atheist?"
"Nah, I'm agnostic, I'm still waiting on definitive proof"

I don't see how I was being narrow minded since you thought I meant a completely different scenario that what I was ******* talking about lol.
#154 to #153 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Well you can't just expect everybody to answer in such a simple way, because they don't see themselves as just Theist of Atheist, dude.

You're being narrow minded because you're constricting what is a gigantic topic into two small answers that can branch off into thousands. You can just ask them if they're religious of not, which is a lot easier.
User avatar #156 to #154 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I can expect a simple answer to a simple question that only has TWO ANSWERS.

"a gigantic topic into two small answers that can branch off into thousands."
Okay, no, no it doesn't.
I am asking a question based on your current level of belief, the only addition to the term that is mildly required is whether or not the person is also agnostic or gnostic respective to the original position. Otherwise, I could not give less of a damn what someone else's thoughts are on religion, because they don't apply to the question I'm asking.

I'm asking, do you believe in the claim that theism makes.
This has TWO answers, Yes I do believe in these claims (Theist), No I do not believe in these claims (Atheist.). And then agnostic and gnostic are added afterwards to determine your position on knowledge related to your belief.

It matters literally 0% to the original question to answer it with apatheist because it means nothing and is not related to the question. This is what I'm talking about.

" You can just ask them if they're religious of not, which is a lot easier."
The original question works perfectly fine.
#169 to #156 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
That's where you're wrong again, you're assuming there is only 2 answers, when there are still multiple others.   
Yes and No are standard answers, but they aren't the only ones.   
   
The fact that you're only expecting one of two answers narrows your perspective immensely, just let people give their own explanation.   
   
"Are you theistic?"   
"No"   
"K"   
How. *******. Drole   
If you had your way, everybody would have three word conversations, walk off, and bitch about how they took to long to answer.
That's where you're wrong again, you're assuming there is only 2 answers, when there are still multiple others.
Yes and No are standard answers, but they aren't the only ones.

The fact that you're only expecting one of two answers narrows your perspective immensely, just let people give their own explanation.

"Are you theistic?"
"No"
"K"
How. *******. Drole
If you had your way, everybody would have three word conversations, walk off, and bitch about how they took to long to answer.
User avatar #182 to #169 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
My lord how dense are you? I'm not asking a vague question such as "What are your thoughts on religion?" I'm asking someones current state of belief, dredging on topic that have no relation to the question, surprisingly enough, doesn't answer the damn question.

You seem to be confused here, I'm not asking a vague question and demanding a concise specific answer, I'm asking a concise specific question that is limited in it's answer, for one of those limited answers.

Did you get upset where a teacher asked a question and you had to choose A,B,C, or D? Were the restricting your expression of your belief? No, they asked a specific damn question that had a specific answer to it.
User avatar #183 to #182 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I'm trying to tell you that there is no comparison between a multiple choice question, and asking someones beliefs. A person's beliefs are abstract and differ greatly to 4 simple goddamn answers.

Oh, and I don't like multiple choice questions, there is too much chance involved. I'd rather use pre-existing knowledge to explain something, and be graded on that.
User avatar #192 to #183 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I'm asking their current belief relating to theistic claims, they may have a myriad of explanations of their beliefs towards the concept of religion, to the application of said beliefs relating to society, to the relationship between belief and current reality, etc etc.

But what you're not realizing is the question I'm asking is no related to those. All I'm simply asking is "do you believe the claims made by theism?"
Please give me another answer that could possible make sense to that question outside of theist and atheist (Or agnostic/gnostic atheist/theist.)

"Oh, and I don't like multiple choice questions, there is too much chance involved. I'd rather use pre-existing knowledge to explain something, and be graded on that."
God that would be terrible for you, you would have failed a very simple question if this were a test.
#197 to #192 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Deist.

I'm going to bed now because I have a mock exam tomorrow, I suggest you do something better with your time than argue with a bored college student.
User avatar #199 to #197 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
>Not realizing a deist is a theist.

I asked one question and you answered it completely wrong. Night college student.
User avatar #203 to #199 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
No, deism is observation, not blind faith.

Bedtime now.
User avatar #213 to #203 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Two implications that are unsurprisingly wrong again,
>Theistic belief does not specify blind faith, however the specific religion may institute blind faith or the specific person may find it necessary. However, the claims made by a theistic belief do not implicate or demand the necessity of blind faith. If someone provided ample evidence for a deity, I would be a theist.

>Deism is a belief based on observation and supposing those observations fit an intended pre-supposed answer. Some would call this blind faith. I call it bad science, but whatever.

Goodnight, hope your test doesn't ask you if you're a male or a female, don't want you going on a tirade over how your gender is more abstract and complex than a one word answer can explain.
User avatar #322 to #213 - garymotherfinoak
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
...really?
User avatar #437 to #322 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Hm?
#542 to #437 - anon id: 6b7afdb8
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
**** of wise-ass, go be a ******* dick somewhere else, kay?
User avatar #544 to #542 - garymotherfinoak
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
le r00d
User avatar #609 to #134 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
if you never thought about it and dont care youre neither agnostic nor atheist
User avatar #679 to #609 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
Damn thread ran out again.

I agree with you on that view of religion, and you would technically be right on that scale except as I said, agnostic has an actual definition that only pertains to knowledge, and ofcourse you need to state belief.

Hence why simply having the terms gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, gnostic theist, and agnostic theist is grammar wise and association wise correct, and covers all bases.
User avatar #680 to #679 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
true
User avatar #662 to #609 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Thread ran out.

"its not atheist since hes not denying a god,"
Does he accept theist claims? If the answer is anything but "Yes", they it is atheist.

"but hes not agnostic since he doesnt have any doubt about if there is a god or not"
Doubt doesn't matter, it's your current level of knowledge of the subject. Unless you claim to KNOW god exists/doesn't exist, you are by default an agnostic.

The default human state concerning this is agnostic atheist.
User avatar #663 to #662 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
but they cant claim to even be unsure, they dont claim anything, theyre not agnostic since they dont know and they dont care, they ignore the matter completely
User avatar #664 to #663 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
What are you going on about? Current knowledge has nothing to do with what someone claims. It means absolutely nothing that they don't care, and them claiming to not know only reinforces the current knowledge they've already established.
User avatar #665 to #664 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true
atheism.
thus the ones who dont know anything dont cant be skeptical or believe its impossible to know wheter there is a god
User avatar #666 to #665 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
You do realize I'm talking about agnostic, the reverse of gnosticism, right? Not that idiotic, wrong word that people use to try and create a middleground between theist and atheist.

"One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. "
They still have a current level of belief, so they are still a theist or an atheist.

"One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true
atheism. "

This is off the basis that true atheist is apparently the claim of the non-existence of god, which is false.

Again, agnostic atheism is the default, if you do not claim absolute knowledge, nor do you accept theistic claims, whether or not you claim to not/don't know anything, you still have a current level of knowledge and current state of belief.
User avatar #667 to #666 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
i dont think you have the right word in that case, agnostic basically means you cant decide, you probably mean another word
User avatar #668 to #667 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
No, I have the right word, however it's been bastardized and used incorrectly for a long time by people who simply want to avoid the label atheist or are under the impression that to be atheist you have to claim god does not exist. The word for not deciding is "agnostic atheist", since you do not have full/any knowledge on the subject, and you don't have any stance on the claim.
User avatar #669 to #668 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
i dont think you get that words change over time, their meaning change, faggot used to mean bundle of sticks, not it means something else.
agnostic, atheist and theist are three completely different things, and someone who is agnostic is not the same as someone who is agnostic atheist, just the choice of words tells it doesnt it? one is about 50/50, and the other is about 75/25
User avatar #670 to #669 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
Yes words change over time, again though as I've explained, I am using the word agnostic as in a-gnostic. Gnostic, still has the same meaning.

The reason this use of agnostic is pointless and wrong, is because not only is the use wrong, but the entire meaning of it is encompassed in "agnostic atheist". If you want to go by a scale:

I don't know- Agnostic
I might know-Agnostic
I most probably do know- Agnostic
I know to the highest degree I can - Agnostic
I know objectively- Gnostic

I don't accept the claim- Atheist
I'm not sure about the claim- Atheist
I'm not accepting the claim nor claiming the claim itself is false- Atheist
I accept the claim- Theist.

A middleground by definition is encompassed by agnostic atheist because at that time you still are not claiming objective knowledge, nor are you accepting the claim. Until these requirements are met, the criteria for "Agnostic" and "Atheist" are still met.

User avatar #671 to #670 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
i dare say being unsure goes more into the direction of being a theist more than being an atheist, since atheist is something more definite
User avatar #672 to #671 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
No? Theism is the acceptance of a theistic claim, this is fairly definite and concrete since you are claiming this subject has proven itself to you or that the evidence is sufficient.

Atheism is not accepting this claim due to lack of evidence on your part or the community placing the claim.

I don't see how a state of not knowing (being unsure) can lead to the acceptance of an evidence based claim. Seems contradictory.
User avatar #673 to #672 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
its not stating not knowing, its stating that THERE IS NO GOD, its a definite statement, someone who is agnostic says there might be a god, thats closer to believing in a god than closer to not believing in one
User avatar #674 to #673 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
.............that isn't what atheism states...atheism is the rejection of a claim made by theists due to various reasons, the primary one being lack of evidence. It's simply a state of not being theist, that's all it is. It makes no claims itself.

And agnostic atheist's say there might be a god, just the evidence hasn't been provided.

" thats closer to believing in a god than closer to not believing in one"
Except that's not how this works. It doesn't work on a "Well it's 49% atheist, 51% theist, so it's closer.", you are atheist until the criteria for theism is met, which is acceptance of the claims of theism.

User avatar #675 to #674 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
you are atheist, agnostic, or theist, atheist would be 0, agnostic would be 50 and theist would be 100, atheists believe that there is no god cause he basically disproves himself, not cause theres not enough evidence for him, everything in the bible basically contradicts itself
User avatar #676 to #675 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
I agree the bible does disprove itself, hence why concerning the bible I would make the claim that the abrahamic god does not exist. However, atheism does not say god does not exist (This is a claim that is defined through gnostic atheism), it simply says for one various reason or another (Some I suppose [lack of evidence], some I don't [Lack of empathy non-sequitur]) that the claim of theism is not accepted. That is it.

If 0-50 don't require the acceptance of theistic claims, then 0-50 would be atheist, and the second it fits theistic criteria it becomes theist.
User avatar #677 to #676 - admiralen
0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
id say all religions disprove themselves since they rely on such ******** powers in order for stuff to work, the second that power becomes science its not worthy of a religion anymore and the "god" figure is just worthy of gratitude not faith and belief, thus 1-99 is agnostic, and 0 and 100 are atheist and theist
User avatar #645 to #609 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Actually you would be, by default an atheist. Since if you do not currently accept or even recognize the claims made by theism, you are then atheist.
User avatar #646 to #645 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
you dont deny it and you dont think it might be right, id call that neither atheist nor agnostic
User avatar #647 to #646 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Well agnostic is purely talking about what level of knowledge you have/claim to have, everyone can be considered an agnostic since no human is omniscient. Otherwise, until you believe something you are an "a-insert concept here-ist", it's not a group you choose to join or not, it's just an expression of your current state of belief.
User avatar #649 to #647 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
if you dont consider anything about a god youre not agnostic about it, and if you never deny the existence of a god youre not an atheist
User avatar #650 to #649 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Do you know what agnostic means?

And that isn't what atheism means either, it's a disbelief in the claim of theism. Hence, if you are not a theist, you are by default, an atheist.

User avatar #651 to #650 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
its a DISBELIEF in the claim of theism, if you never think its wrong you never become an atheist, you arent unsure wether it exists or not either, you dont consider anything about it at all
User avatar #652 to #651 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Maybe disbelief was a wrong term to use in this explanation, non-acceptance of theistic claims is a better choice of words. and agnostic concerns your level of knowledge on the subject, not your level of caring about it.
User avatar #653 to #652 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
but if you dont know and dont care id think another word would be in use
User avatar #654 to #653 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Well if you don't know then you're agnostic, and if you don't care, then well...you're agnostic and don't care about the subject.
User avatar #655 to #654 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
i wouldnt say youre agnostic if you dont even consider the existance of a god
User avatar #656 to #655 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Why wouldn't you? Agnostic means you don't claim to have full knowledge on the subject subjectively, nor do you objectively. Since essentially every human being is objectively agnostic, I would assume the term applies without bothering with semantics like if someone even considers the existence of god.

The fact is, agnostic/gnostic and theist/atheist are terms that don't change based on someone personal feeling towards a subject. They are based on current knowledge and current belief, two things that, while that specific person may not even think about them in the slightest, still are established whether the person did so consciously or not.
User avatar #657 to #656 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
if you know nothing at all about it and dont consider it i dont think it can be based of your current knowledge since agnostic basically means youre not sure wether there exists a god or not
User avatar #658 to #657 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Well agnostic means you aren't claiming nor do you have omniscience on the claim that god exists. The very fact that you know nothing about it automatically triggers the agnostic label.
User avatar #659 to #658 - admiralen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
doubt it, its closer to being an atheist in that case since you dont even have a concept of god
User avatar #660 to #659 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Why do you doubt it? When you fit the confines requires for agnostic, you are therefor, an agnostic. It's actually quite simple.

and it wouldn't be an atheist since atheist is referring towards belief (or reactionary belief to theistic claims) where as agnosticism is related to your knowledge of the subject.
User avatar #661 to #660 - admiralen
0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
thats why ive been saying its neither, its not atheist since hes not denying a god, but hes not agnostic since he doesnt have any doubt about if there is a god or not
User avatar #307 to #103 - merrymarvelite
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Well, technically everybody is one or the other.

Technically atheist just means you're not a theist.

And of course for anything you could possibly be you either are or are not.
User avatar #441 to #307 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
That's what I meant. I was talking about people who think that these terms don't apply when they try to substitute it for something that concerns a different topic. Such as here, someone using apatheist instead of atheist when they label two completely different concerns.
#110 to #103 - kaoknight **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #119 to #110 - mysterykid
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
We can tell other people about - having faith. What we had faith in. What we found important enough to fight for. It's not whether you were right or wrong, but how much faith you were willing to have, that decides the future.
User avatar #116 to #110 - noblexfenrir
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Well people in general can be annoying on either side of the spectrum regardless of their beliefs. Hell, I'm a ******* asshole a majority of the time but that's just me, matters nothing that I'm an atheist at the same time.

#90 to #87 - mysterykid
Reply +57 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Hey Christ-fags, why so religion? Atheism is so much better, because we're actually intelligent and think about our lives, unlike you faggot religious idiots.

I feel so Euphoric and Melancholic though, because I got friendzoned again today. I was at the store buying MLP merchandise (Body pillows and Onaholes), and as I opened the door I saw a woman heading towards me. Being an intelligent gentleman, I kept the door open and let her go first. She just walks out and doesn't even suck my dick. Friendzoned again

Also ITT: Which fedora brings out my Intelligent nice guy side?
#93 to #90 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Ay, Mysterykid.

I still have those fedoras, but I think I broke one.
User avatar #95 to #93 - mysterykid
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Ay, Sokkabingo.

It's not so often that I run into users I know outside of social. Couldn't help it.
User avatar #97 to #95 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
It's really weird, I get where you're coming from.
#616 to #90 - hotmammoth
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
This fedora - atheist connection has to be an American thing. I have never quite understood it, does atheists in America actually act this way or is it some sort of "defence" for religous people against atheists? It seems alot like an ad hominem.
#687 to #616 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
It's kind of a shell that people enter when they realize they're going to virgins for most of their life, and they try to find reasons for it.
First reason they come up with is that women don't fully respect them.
Second is that religion is ******** because women aren't hopping on their dicks.
Third is that women will only date asshole and "Nice guys" will never get anything.

This leads them to act incredibly autistic.
(and yes, the one in the picture is me)

The whole fedora thing is part of the "Nice guy" routine, they think Women look for "Class" rather than "Swag" but all they're doing is making themselves look worse.
I myself hate fedoras, but I own like 4-5 of them because I played the role of a gangster in a Bugsy Malone performance.
#688 to #687 - hotmammoth
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
I don't really understand the connection between all of that and being an Atheist though. If betafags actually want and/or believe thay they'll be rewarded for being "nice" they should be religious. Otherwise you know that you only have yourself to blame for not being the kind of person you want to be. The connection isn't logical at all to me. Oh well. The self defence mechanics in our brains can be quite retarded sometimes.



User avatar #689 to #688 - sokkabingo **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
Yeah, pretty much.
The atheist thing comes from their obsession with being the most intelligent person in the room, which they try to show off constantly to gain some kind of dominance or authority. They see Atheism as the most logical choice, and berate anyone who isn't an atheist.
As I said yesterday with that r00d fagit, I'm an apatheist and I don't really give a **** if people are religious or not. Neckbeards would rather try to show off their limited knowledge in the hopes some random passing women notices his rippling flab and personality, and reward him with a blowjob.
#692 to #689 - hotmammoth
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/28/2013) [-]
Haha, that's quite an inefficient way of trying to impress women. Thank you for educating me on the behavior of betafags anyway.
User avatar #20 - benjamino
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
I was an Agnostic Theist.

Until I found the Flying Spaghetti Monster. My whole issue with being agnostic is I wanted to believe there was something more than what we see, a life beyond this. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is by far the nicest and most reasonable religion I have heard of, with a decent explanation as to why science can disprove what it says. So I choose FSM.

Has His Noodly Appendage touched you?
#176 to #20 - anon id: 4dc07779
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
What type of FSM are you? Reformed or Aboriginal?
User avatar #293 to #176 - owlexterminator
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
What the **** did you just say?! "What type of FSM are you?" BITCH NOBODY IS A ******* FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER EXCEPT FOR FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER. CHRIST.
#471 to #20 - bummerdrummer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
#363 to #20 - mastereleven
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
bless this comment
#135 - DiabloStrawhat
Reply +29 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
If God is real, then why will the sun rise in a few hours?

Christians: 0
Atheists: 0
People who settle their disputes with a children's' card game: 1
#207 to #135 - vortix
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
if god doesn't exist then why do yellow squiggly lines burn?


Christians: 0
Atheists: 0
People who settle their disputes with a children's' card game: 2
#610 to #207 - anon id: 0e37ad31
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I read both comments in the abridged voices.

It was glorious.
#429 to #135 - Kairyuka
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I love you for that reference.
#104 - lolfire
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Nobody cares which you are.    
   
Nobody cares about your opinions or beliefs.    
   
   
   
Now keep that in mind for the rest of your life.
Nobody cares which you are.

Nobody cares about your opinions or beliefs.



Now keep that in mind for the rest of your life.
User avatar #344 to #104 - MANana
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
i like you
#475 to #104 - tyraxio
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Aww man, what's the name of that film? I've forgotten, I just remember it was pretty good.
User avatar #550 to #475 - teefa
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
shaun of the dead.
#106 to #104 - clifford
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Take car, go to Mum's, kill Phil (sorry), go to the winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for this whole thing to blow over.
#150 to #106 - shishiko **User deleted account**
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
lovely...
lovely...
User avatar #109 to #104 - navadae
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
problem with this here is.. all the people that jump down your throat for not believing what they do

you know it happens
#127 - alphagex
Reply +20 123456789123345869
(09/26/2013) [-]
Hey atheist is god isn't real then how come he got a wikipedia page?
Checkmate atheist

Christians:1
Atheist:0
#326 - bumpin
Reply +17 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
So basically, Gnostics are assholes
#390 to #326 - bobbysnobby
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Doubt you care but gnostic and agnostic are opposite sides debating states of knowledge. A Gnostic believes the question "Does god exist" believes that question has a knowable answer, an agnostic believes it has no knowable answer. Thats the only distinction. Agnostic, Atheist, and Infidel are all different and are not mutually exclusive one is a position about knowledge, one is a position of belief, and one is a condemnation of faith.
#360 to #326 - yuukoku
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
No, they're just not understanding or accepting of other people's opinions...

Oh, wait...

Yeah, they're ass holes.
User avatar #515 to #360 - lorkhan
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
I'm a gnostic atheist and I won't judge you for being religious or whatever you believe, I just seriously believe that there is no god. I have no good evidence its just my opinion. So how about you respect my opinion eh?
#500 to #360 - pachecodos
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
That's wrong.

I am sure God doesn't exist. That doesn't mean i'm gonna kill or shout or insult anyone that believes in God. I have friends that believe in God, i have friends in all the expectrum of the image and I respect them. But what the ****, I don't believe in God.

This is ******* sick. If you are sure of something that means you are not understanding or accepting of other people's opinions? No, it just means you are sure of something.
#374 to #360 - teenytinyspider
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(09/27/2013) [-]
Not all of them.