Zierro

I don't get it either. Yeah, it's witty but it doesn't make sense. That's like saying the best flavor of ice cream is nothing. If it's the animals they are talking about then I agree to an extent. Animals wouldn't have to suffer from human abuse but humans do good things for animals too. For example, dogs would probably be pretty lonely and bored creatures if they didn't have people to play with.

So are logical fallacies. I don't recall saying the two groups are the same. I also don't recall saying all weak atheists are strong atheists. What I did say was weak atheists 1. are strong atheists 2. are agnostic 3. haven't formed a religion at all yet or haven't heard about god. In that case, the point still stands. You really like taking things to the most unnecessary extent don't you? I didn't mean they have absolutely no opinion, but when it comes to the context of whether god exists or does not exist, they don't choose either one. You're really set on telling me on what you think I don't understand. I'll give you that, but it just happens that the vast majority of weak atheists are either agnostic, strong atheists, or indifferent to god's existence altogether/haven't heard of him. This isn't directed towards you Venomai, but I'd like to point out how I think it's funny that atheists are quick to point out things like the inquisition, even though it doesn't apply to the majority of theists, but when I say atheists have faith they say "No, only strong atheists do"... Even though "strong" implies that it is the more truer form of atheism as opposed to being the "weaker" version, now doesn't it? So all in all, strong atheism is the stronger version of atheism and it uses faith. What does this tell us about atheism in general folks?

What's next? Not banning people who say, "I'll pay you 5k for a good time,"? As stated, law systems intend to be consistent and black and white on purpose.

Batteries would be pretty useless. No more Pokemon. :(

I agree. Carrots improve eyesight so they should give you an Attack boost too.

You're living in the past man. Don't worry about TIF, worry about the economy!

Yes, aliens can probably time travel.

And here we go again with the, "I can't logically prove it to you so I think I'll flame you instead." I pinch myself for calling you one of my favorite TIFers. Thanks a lot. Here is the argument again: Either respond to it or ignore it. But I don't want to hear a grown man cry about it. It makes me feel like a bad person. Everyone is born a weak atheist because they lack the belief in god. However, once you hear about god you can no longer be only a weak atheist. You can either believe god is true (theist), believe god is not true (strong atheist), or be indifferent (agnostic). You can still be a weak atheist, but once you've heard of god you cannot be a weak atheist alone. Weak atheism goes hand and hand with strong atheism and agnosticism - if you believe god doesn't exist then that is the lack of belief in god and if you don't have an opinion on it then that is also a lack of belief in god. By "atheists", I'm talking about strong atheists from now on because I've already established that if you are a weak atheist then either 1. you are also a strong atheist 2. you are also an agnostic or 3. you have never heard of god before. There are three possible things you can do to a statement. 1. Believe 2. Not believe 3. Be indifferent/hold no opinion "There is no god." Atheists believe this. Theists do not believe this. Agnostics hold no opinion. "There is a god." Atheists do not believe this. Theists do believe this. Agnostics hold no opinion. What do you know? Theists and atheists both have beliefs and lacks of beliefs. The only one with no beliefs at all are the agnostics, which you seemed to be defending with your talk about not having any beliefs whatsoever. Do I seriously need to find a definition for the word belief for you because that seems a little kindergarten if you ask me. Like I said from the start, you are so set on pushing yourself as far from theism as possible that you go to the ridiculous extent of claiming that you have no beliefs at all. I could spend my time flaming you creatively like you've tried doing to me, but your argument really speaks for itself. I mean I've had some pretty dumb debates before, but saying that believing god doesn't exist is not a belief? In fact, let's try a whole new approach altogether! Do you believe that theists are wrong? If so, where is your proof? If you don't have any then you believe they are wrong off the basis of - oooo, get ready for it, I'm gonna say that forbidden word you're so afraid of - FAITH!

Of course it doesn't have to force you to choose your saved items each time your inventory changes, but you have the option of picking which 3/4 items are your most valuable. If you do not pick, then the computer will pick for you, and if that happens then you don't have an argument against the Items Lost on Death system because it was your fault for not picking which items you want to be saved.

Atheism is a lack of a belief and a belief at the same time. It is a lack of belief because atheists do not believe the fact that god exists. It is also a belief (not a lack of) because atheists believe that god does not exist. Theists have a lack of belief too though - they lack the belief that there is no god. Both atheism and theism have a belief and a lack of a belief. Agnosticism is the only one with no beliefs - unless you count not having sufficient information to form an opinion as a belief. Going back to the "crux" of the argument - it is neither possible to prove or disprove god so there is no evidence. And since atheists and theists alike have beliefs, but they are beliefs that have no evidence, they are beliefs which are based on faith.

I see. So you are saying someone can "win" an argument only based on their argumentative skills regardless of if they are actually right or not?

When did I say it wasn't lack of belief? I never argued that atheists believe in god.

It wouldn't even be called life then though.

I don't see how adding more words means you've "won" the debate. Well... you were partially right. A weak atheist is someone who lacks theism and who does not happen to believe in the existence of any gods no more, no less. This is also sometimes called agnostic atheism because most people who self-consciously lack belief in gods tend to do so for agnostic reasons. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

You're contradicting yourself. Why would you disagree on something that they have proven you wrong about? You wouldn't. Besides, 99.99999999% of debates aren't "won" or "lost". Uhh, do me a favor and check our posts. Mine was the last one that actually attempted to have a logical debate instead of say, "You're ridiculous bla bla bla." I don't think a subject in the world exists that has better debate potential than this one. :) That probably explains why I have 200+ posts in this thread. No one's saying you're not. What we were saying is that your argument that atheism doesn't have beliefs only applies to agnosticism, so you are accidentally defending agnosticism instead. Even some of the definitions you've gave say plain out "the belief that there is no god".

It wasn't merely a compliment. It was you praising him on how you think he's always right, in which that case, since you said you believe in god and Warrior is never wrong, then you are wrong. And since you are wrong then that means Warrior can't always be right. Paradox pl0x?? So an individual human being is expected to have the same knowledge as every human being put together? That doesn't make sense. The purpose of debating is to get other people to think in different lights and get yourself to think in a different light as well. I don't care about ratings - as long as I get the point across, I consider my job done. I wonder why Warrior uses the first definition as opposed to the second one when he argues that atheism is not a belief. :-k

Have you really skipped over every last example I've used? Instead of providing a reason for why you disagree that you are not using faith in those certain examples, you say that arguing with me is going to be pointless and it will go nowhere - which you have no evidence for... My last post had logical arguments in it and you've done nothing but ignore all of them and then reply giving no logical rebuttals, but instead a pissed off rant of yours. If you disagree with something, LET ME KNOW WHY, don't just say I'm wrong. Anyone can do that. In fact, "Warrior, you're being ignorant. You're being illogical. You're wrong. I'm right." This doesn't make a discussion, it makes two people saying "yes" and "no" back and forth forever. You make it seem like it's one of those debates that drag on and on, but it's not even a page long. :lol: You got my hopes up and now you are giving up just like that. Tisk tisk. Now you're saying theists are idiots and on a lower level than atheists. Shows a lot about your character, doesn't it? O:) If you want to argue, do it. Don't post your laments because quite honestly, we don't care. I guess I can't really expect much more from someone who is cornered, especially when it comes to their beliefs which they hold onto so dearly.

We're trying to argue here, not give autographs out to fanboys. This topic formed my beliefs a lot. I used to be an atheist until I realized how foolish I was. And the word you are looking for is open-minded, not feeble. By the way, you could at least give an explanation as to why you disagree with me instead of using ad hominem.

Nirvana - Heart Shaped Box

He said no one knows the answer, he didn't say there is no answer. He's right. Who's to say you're more right than us? Only a perfect being could prove who is right and who is wrong... and none of us have that attribute.

Did you even read what you quoted? Like I just said, this is obviously not meant to be a personal debate - so if things don't apply to you, take them with a grain of salt - don't cry about it, as it's not really as big of a deal as you make it. Stop having faith that I am out to get you. ;) I only said I take you as a skeptic, I never said that you definitely were one. By the way, that's a pretty bad example to use because it seems to be implying to me that you do not believe that supernatural events never occur - meaning you do believe in them. In that case, you're not a very consistent atheist. You're confusing seeking supernatural explanations on purpose with the belief that they are possible at all. I prefer naturalistic explanations, but I can acknowledge the existence of things that don't have naturalistic explanations such as the mysteries of life. Like you said we have our limits, so obviously there are going to be things that are impossible to explain. I can say the same thing about you claiming that you don't have any faith. :lol: But I thought this wasn't supposed to be a personal argument... Anyways, if you make assumptions then you have faith. That's as simple as it gets. Every single one of your actions doesn't have scientific proof showing that it is the right course of action to take. You act because that's what you believe is the best thing to do - even though you don't have proof that it is. You choose turkey over chicken because you have faith that you are more in the turkey mood - even though it's impossible to know until you taste both of them and find out for yourself (observational evidence). I love how desperately (and pointlessly) you try to flee from faith even though it's all around you. It's quite funny actually. Atheism makes "faith" into a bad thing because theism has faith, but then theists point out that everyone no matter what religion has faith, and atheists say "nuh-uh!" If you want to bring up uncertainties, I point you in the direction of the debate between Tryto and I. By your own logic, theists don't have faith either because they do not seek to be 100% convinced - they seek to be 100% committed. Instead of answering my question which raises a valid point, you call it out on being ridiculous. I'll ask you the generic question with the same point though: If something happens, what makes you sure that it will happen again? Faith does, that's what. And what if the sun goes out, blows up, earth gets hit by meteor, etc.? You know, the earth probably isn't going to be around forever and I'm sure you'll agree. One day there will be and end... but it's a common human thing to believe that tomorrow will not be that day. That is a belief based on faith. Nobody wants to live their life in fear that we'll all die tomorrow, so instead we use faith and fill our minds with the happy thought that we won't. And if we are wrong, SO WHAT??? It's not like you get a score for how many times you were right, so I don't see why proof is almost treated as if it's a necessity to life. Either you believe they are wrong or you believe they are right. For your own sake, stop changing the definition of "belief" to suit your argument and just accept that you have faith as well. What you are doing is defending agnosticism, where they admit that they do not know therefore they have no belief on whether god does or does not exist - as opposed to atheism which states that they believe god doesn't exist. PS: This is one of the most fun arguments I've had in a while. Thanks.

9 and 10 were pretty old fashioned. I just hate when a lot of the monsters are robots. That's not scary at all.

Tool - Stinkfist

I think a more primitive life would be less stressful and hectic, because there would be less stimuli to distract us to what is truly important. But... I also think it would get boring at times and doesn't allow for individualism.

The best fashion is the balance between "I do care what others think" and "I don't care what others think".