AlexDT

Jeez, you're fast :? Just out of interest, how much did 86-99 cost?

[hide=Part two] How have I misquoted? Given the full context, you said: "To be honest, I'd rather work on a percentage system. 100% agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing and not existing are exactly the same, and so on." The rest of your post doesn't seem to suggest that your above definition is being used "merely as a tool." Ok, this is getting a little repetitive now. 100% atheism = God does not exist 100% theism = God exists Lets just say, for the sake of the imaginary spectrum, that agnosticism is in the middle. Place yourself on the likelihood-that-god-exists-imho spectrum And the latter is incorrect, theres no belief involved. Its the conviction, beyond any reasonable doubt, that god(s) dont exist. Some people say the moonlanding was faked because their older brother told them so. Some say the same because they watched some sort of documentary, and accepted it. They both share the same belief. I was just offering my observation on the most common reason for a persons atheism. Atheism does not lie in the realm of belief. It is a lack of a belief. Atheism is a belief system in the same way that bald is a hair colour. Be warned, or Ill use even more clichés next time. If youre saying that agnostics are the ones who do not claim to know whether or not a God exists, then both atheists and agnostics are agnostic (I guess the latter is redundant). Theists are the only ones who say they know either way.[/hide] [hide=Part two cont.] I know Im an agnostic. Ive said that before. But to say that causes confusion, since the definitions are varied anyway, and atheism is the more adequate term. I lack belief in god(s), thats all. Ok, you know what? Fine. Im an agnostic in the matter of EVERYTHING, because everything in existence may or may not exist, and this may or may not all be a complete illusion. Even the illusion may not exist. Therefore, Im agnostic towards everything. However, I know beyond any reasonable doubt that I exist. Let me just repeat that for the umpteenth time. Any reasonable doubt. This is where all the confusion has been arising, because Im also applying that phrase to agnosticism. The agnostics with which Ive spoken think that the nonexistence of God can be reasonably doubted. I think this is the widely accepted definition, whether its accurate or not. Well thats just redundant, because beyond any reasonable doubt (getting sick of it yet? Its stuck in my head now :() already technically encompasses that. I disagree. It's extremely important that we're all clear on definitions before we get into a debate with these terms. Ok' date=' Ill attempt to lay out my definitions. - Agnosticism: The opinion that, with our current understanding of the universe, a conclusion cannot be drawn either way. However, the lack of evidence does not put Gods nonexistence beyond any reasonable doubt (argh). - Atheism: The lack of belief in god(s), usually due to lack of evidence. Technically convoluted, but perhaps from now on we should argue based on individual beliefs. This is getting too tiring.[/hide']

[hide=Part one] Why can't God have a hand in evolution? Why should he? The theory of evolution does not require a god to exist, so why should we think that he does? And if he does have some sort of involvement in evolution, why are we still so imperfect? Why didn't he accelerate it a little, or only allow beneficial mutations? If God did help with evolution, how did an omniscient and omnipotent being manage to fail so triumphantly? Why? The universe, if not the multiverse, is a pretty big place. I don't see why unicorns couldn't exist somewhere. Sure, they could. The problem is, of course, that unicorns are not quite as incredible as God. Unicorns didn't create the entire universe. They aren't omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I find it utterly ludicrous that you proclaim yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorn existence, because you're saying that the idea is reasonably credible. Perhaps you don't understand the phrase "beyond any reasonable doubt"? As ven pointed out, this is kind of necessary. The arguing over semantics part, or the logic part? If you intend to win the argument by being the greater semanticist, I won't bother arguing with you anymore.[/hide] ~ I don't mean to double-post, but putting everything in one post somehow causes the format tags to do strange stuff. I don't remember setting the font size to 50... ~ Oh right, posting time limit. Nevermind...

I bet the other kids were allowed to dress up as zombies, why wasn't he?

Yes. Yes, it does, undoubtedly. I really want to go to the GWD, for example, but I doubt any team would employ someone who can't afford a Verac Helmet. Power-training skills? Almost impossible, without a decent pile of money. Heck, I was once abused for using a Dragon Scimitar at Pest Control.

This is incorrect by most definitions of agnosticism. Here is a more accurate explanation of agnosticism: From: About.com - What is Agnosticism? You are either agnostic or gnostic. There are no percentages... it's a simple one or the other! Remember, gnosticism does not necessarily dictate one's belief in god -- some theists are gnostic, and others are agnostic. For example, a strong believer in god may come to accept their ignorance (i.e. lack of knowledge), thus becoming an agnostic theist. Look, I understand that you're trying to be clever, I really do. However, misquoting me is not a good idea. I do actually understand the etymology of the word 'agnosticism'. So, I must know that the definition of agnosticism you've quoted me on is not shared by anyone else. If you'd bothered to read all of my post, you would have understood that it was merely a tool I was employing to gauge another poster's level of agnosticism. Let me give you an example: On one end of the spectrum is the atheist, who is convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no God, probably due to evidence, and lack thereof. In the middle is the agnostic, who is of the opinion that, employing our current understanding of the world, we still cannot begin to scratch at the question of whether or not God exists. Then, of course, there's the theist, who has faith for some reason. I am, for the sake of argument, an atheist. The most important thing you need to keep in mind, however, is that I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no God, based on afformentioned evidence and nonevidence. Now, I find it extremely difficult to believe that anyone is a true agnostic. You simply cannot (or at least, I would hope) ignore the facts that evolution suggests that a creator god is not necessary, or that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies (I couldn't think of any actual evidence to back up theism, sorry guys). I will concede, due to the definitions (which are making me increasingly frustrated), that nobody knows for certain whether or not there is a god. However, that's where "beyond any reasonable doubt" comes back in. You can certainly say that the existence of unicorns is currently unknowable, but to call yourself an agnostic in the matter of unicorns is a little silly. To me, saying that no knowledge currently posessed will help answer the big ol' question is ludicrous. We may not know for certain, but we can certainly draw a strong conclusion one way, or another. It was only at this point that I remembered the terms "strong atheism" and "weak atheism", which are perhaps the more accepted terms for what I'm trying to describe. ...It was also at this point that I noticed we're now arguing over semantics and not actually achieving anything. This is no fun, let's get back to logic.

99% of the people that hate farming are so ignorant that they believe you need to stand around watching the plant grow. The other 1% are too poor to get decent farm xp, or too lazy to go plant new trees 10 hrs later. So in other words, you're right, any everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? Sound logic.

No i'm pretty sure the guy above you was right. A decoy can be known as a Red Herring... I'm sure you could always do this, he and herrings have been there for a while now :D Li Chef I think he was referring to the hue, or lack thereof, of the item the OP used, instead of the actual term for a misleading device. As said before, that dialogue occurs no matter what you use. No idea why my character thought the guard would like a half-full ranging potion...

Ah, a deus ex machina. How cute. Assumedly, it is also true that hueless verdant notions slumber angrily. Until you can prove to me that anything else in existence is able to operate beyond the laws of logic, I can only come to the conclusion that a god cannot either. *Laughs quietly* I just told you that the laws of physics did not exist a millionth of a second after the Big Bang. Does that sound logical to you? It doesn't to me, but it is what it is. Your linguistic eloquence, nor your condescension make your argument any better. And your parroting does not make your argument any clearer. If your argument is simply "there's a ridiculously slim possibility that some sort of god might exist", then I'm with you. If your argument is "before the Big Bang, logic didn't exist. Because God isn't logical, God must have existed then as well, therefore he exists", then I'm not with you, for obvious reasons. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth at all, believe me. I just don't really know what you're getting at. Perhaps you could borrow my (very disputable) eloquence for a moment, and tell me? To be honest, I'd rather work on a percentage system. 100% agnosticism is the belief that the chances of God existing and not existing are exactly the same, and so on.

Am I the only one who has a problem with, among other things, Claire's unbelievable stupidity? She tries to fight an incredibly dangerous criminal with a taser. I don't think I can continue to watch a show with a protagonist like that.

False. On the former. Fine. He exists as an idea, as neurochemicals in our brains. Otherwise, I don't see how that statement works. I am always open to scientific enlightenment, however.

Trivium is the group that wrote Boat Rudder Strange Mountain, yes?

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial. Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour. What's the likelihood of your computer being transported halfway across the world, because every atom decided to move in a certain direction simultaneously? Is it low? Yes. Is it measurable? Probably not. That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang. Also, there are a lot of religions - picking the right god lowers your odds significantly. [/hide] I understand the point on religion and the unlikely notion that one out of thousands is the correct one, but I'm not satisfied with the other part to your answer. With the computer example, I don't see how that relates to the notion of god because god isn't made of atoms. To believers, a god is something beyond our worldly reality. While I find the concept of god wholly unbelievable myself, I still don't see how you can seriously expect to put a figure of probability on his existence. Also, what makes you say this: "That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang." Why is that the case? Believers often claim that god is timeless and has existed "forever". It's this completely transcendant defintion that, to me, makes putting a probability on god's existance laughable. I see where you're coming from. However, to me, the idea that God exists in some 'supernatural realm', or that he 'isn't made of atoms', is also laughable, and doesn't help the problem at all. It makes it worse, because then you need to prove that a supernatural realm exists. And if he isn't made of atoms, then he doesn't exist, and existence is a prerequisite of, well, existence. And again, the idea that God is without time goes against Occam's Razor. It's also unprovable.

Ok, allow me to clarify to the best of my ability. Saying that 'God doesn't exist' is just as silly as saying that 'unicorns don't exist'. They might. Perhaps in another galaxy, evolution ended up giving horses a single horn on their head. Actually, now that I think of it, unicorns are probably more likely to exist than God. It's just that the existence of God is so overwhelmingly unlikely, and yes, unnecessary, that I can't see any reason to classify myself as an agnostic. I'm 99% atheist/1% agnostic, and you're perhaps 40%/60%. I really have no idea. I think I've ended up confusing even myself now, the definitions are far too fuzzy.

Ah, a deus ex machina. How cute. Assumedly, it is also true that hueless verdant notions slumber angrily. Until you can prove to me that anything else in existence is able to operate beyond the laws of logic, I can only come to the conclusion that a god cannot either. *Laughs quietly*

The validity of your idea is inversely proportional to the heed people will take of it.

Why do you say that? I hear Dawkins towing this line but I've never understood the rationale behind it. How can you claim the odds of something which by definition is not amenable to be detected or measured? I can know the odds of a coin toss or the roll of some dice, but that's because I actually know and can observe the outcome of each trial. Having said that, I don't think not being able to determine the probability of god existing works in his favour. What's the likelihood of your computer being transported halfway across the world, because every atom decided to move in a certain direction simultaneously? Is it low? Yes. Is it measurable? Probably not. That's pretty much the only way that a creator god could come into existence - if he spontaneously appeared at around the same time as the Big Bang. Also, there are a lot of religions - picking the right god lowers your odds significantly. a) Burden of proof. Burden of proof. For the love of Zeus, why don't people understand the burden of proof? B) Yes, there is. Occam's Razor. Allow me to elaborate: Let us imagine that there was a creator God that set off the Big Bang. Great! We've answered the question of how the Big Bang happened (which, I'm happy to admit, we don't know the actual answer to). However, now we have a being which, by definition, must be at least as complex as the universe. This goes against Occam's Razor. So, where did he come from? We've actually exacerbated the conundrum. Oh, and also, there's no evidence whatsoever that one exists. Seeing as the creator created something as large as the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and there's no evidence of its existence, that actually seems like a pretty good reason for me to not think he exists right now, if you'll excuse the egregious grammar. c) Answered above. One thing I would like to add is that I'm an agnostic. I appreciate that a god may exist. It's just that my atheism lies outside the realm of reasonable doubt. The idea of a god, to me, is unreasonable, yet possible. You could probably call me, and almost every other atheist, a very atheistic agnostic. However, that's a rather convoluted label, so we just stick with 'atheist' to avoid confusion. It only really ever gets confusing when talking with agnostics.

I'm an agnostic. Don't let a few douchebag apples spoil the rest of us. I was tempted to say something along the lines of "agnostics like you", but somehow that sounded worse. I'm just tired of the ones who berate us for making an absolute statement, then do the exact same thing. I do, however, apologise if it offended anyone it wasn't directed at. I think. Maybe. Yes. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? Logically, the idea of God should never have even surfaced. And on a pseudo-side-note, this is where definitions get a little blurry. By your definition, I'm technically an agnostic, because somewhere, in some form, some sort of God may exist. He's almost certainly not a creator God, since a creator needs to be at least as complex as its creation, which calls into question the origin of his existence. However, I'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no god. (A good example of blurred definitions is the term 'pantheism', which is not really a strictly theistic belief at all) Now, while it's possible that a god could exist, there is a) No evidence that he does, B) No reason to think that he does, according to Occam's Razor, and c) No reason to do so anyway, since the odds of his existence are so overwhelmingly low (a rushed rebuke of Pascal's Wager) Ergo, I don't see how agnosticism is a rational stance. Perhaps technical agnosticism, but I'm going to stick with 99.99(andafewmorenines)% atheism.

The game was pure, unadulterated win the first time around. I honestly can't empathize with any of the deranged ranters, it was a fantastic game. However, now that I know how it ends, I don't want to replay it. It seems a little futile :?

Proof, please.

I usually do the following: "Oh, I'm so sorry! I didn't notice you standing there for the last hour! I'm terribly sorry to have been such an inconvenience. Sorry..." And then hop.

I'm guessing it got a graphical update when summoning (or more specifically, pet dogs) was released.

We're all wrong, are we? So there is a god, it's just that he exists in a different way than the one we understand? There isn't a god, but we're wrong about the concept of nonexistence? How can we all be wrong? Either there is a god or there isn't. And until we discover some sort of supernatural realm, the God hypothesis can be tested in this natural world, using scientific principles. And it's been done. And we haven't found anything. I'm sorry, but I'm sick of you agnostics, with your perceived intellectualism, and unfounded arrogance. I think sometimes you enjoy telling everyone else that they're wrong.

That's the point. I can't. Just like someone can't rise from the dead after being crucified. Let me rephrase my analogy: I'm going to write a book. It'll state the following: - The sun is a big burning ball of gas - Nobody ever actually does gardening, it's a hallucination on the gardener's part. Your roses are tended to by magical pixies - God is real My point is that even though the first is true, it does not validate the third. And conceding that the second is false should, if anything, weaken your belief in the third, because they're written in the same book. But in the end, we should look at the third and work out if it's valid on its own - that is, look for evidence. The authors of the Bible may well have known how many Earth days it takes Jupiter to complete its orbit, or that subatomic particles don't follow the laws of physics, but we know that now, and we haven't found any proof of god. And if there's still any confusion, I'm an atheist.

1. Hm, let's see. - Freedom of speech - The ability to talk down a city street without being fliered to death (serious papercut hazard here) - Laws against gay marriage And what are its most prominent causes? - A lowered value on life - Unfounded hatred - Profound ignorance 2. Ooh, a little [puncture]ly, are we? 3. Actually, he's quite intelligent. I'm willing to bet that his IQ is far above 100, instead of below, and is therefore not an idiot at all. All-in-all, I like the idea, although London seems more secular than, perhaps, New York. I would have liked to see the signs on the yellow taxis...