Sly_Wizard

Except it's not really that simple because it innately assumes that there is something intercorrelated to connect each group to the other, when there isn't (More specifically, concerning gender). *Points to last page*

Ugh no. That's not what I did/said, so let's try this again. Atheism = Parent Agnosticism = Mother Strong Atheism = Father The problem here is that your mother (weak atheism/agnosticism) is not derived from parent (atheism) as there is no correlation between the two. Being an atheist does not require you to be an agnostic nor does being an agnostic require you to be an atheist as being an agnostic has nothing upon nothing to do with atheism. To try to make it as such is to completely bastardize the meaning of agnosticism, which would make Thomas Huxley cringe. It's like me assuming parent = theism, mother = agnosticism and father = strong theism, deducing that agnosticism must be a subcategory of theism and arguing that to be an agnostic you must first be a theist. Or, expounding upon that, to be an atheist would require you to first be a theist-- An absurd proposition. It's really that simple. I think I totally went over this already. The disbelief in something is not the same thing as the disbelief in the existence of that something, much as the rejection of that which cannot be thought of does not mean the rejection of the thing that isn't. If I were to say something like, "Tom isn't bald" this would mean that Tom has hair on his head, not that Tom doesn't exist because he isn't bald. To argue that Tom doesn't exist because he isn't bald would be to make a confusion in the difference between the existential and the predicative. Same thing here. To assert a disbelief in God or something about him is not to assert his non-existence. To assert the non-existence of God is to assert nothing about Him is real.

Gender determines whether or not you'll be classified as a father or mother, hence the latter is dependent on the former. There's no such correlation between agnosticism and atheism. Agnosticism is not a pre-requisite for atheism and vice versa.The problem is you're trying to join to terms which are contradictory or, more specifically, non-compatible.

Who said they are equivalent? As ven pointed out, they're in completely different realms. "Weak atheism" is just a way of saying that someone is both an atheist and an agnostic, not that they are the same thing. I mean, if they were, what would be the point of the term? If two somethings inhabit different realms within the same, for lack of a better word because I can't think of one atm, spectrum, then it's impossible to be both of them as that would form a contradiction. Just like someone can't be a Christian and a Muslim or someone can't be a theist and an atheist or even a theist and an agnostic. *Points to his post*

And by the way, "weak atheism" is a total bastardization of the term agnosticism and the original reason for by which it was coined. To say "Most atheists are agnostics" is well... No. That requires a complete redefining of both words. Whoever came up with that whole "strong" and "weak" thing should be severely bludgeoned (If they're still alive). Thomas Huxley would be ashamed. The denial of a thing does not equal the denial of the existence of that thing just as it's faulty to assume what cannot be thought of cannot exist. Henceforth, agnosticism =/= atheism on any fundamental level. Following some of that logic, I might as well coin atheism as "weak theism".

No, it's not. Since you chose to just reply with 3 words, I take it you misunderstood the broader message... You're free to believe in the absence of Gods or in the existence of them, I meant it from an encyclopedic, neutral view... Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a 'God': Since you can't produce plausible, testable evidence neither towards the existence of a God nor towards the absence of one, the result is "unknown", just as in a crime without witnesses or inconclusive evidence, a verdict cannot be reached based on assumptions or personal experiences/perceptions. Rational and personal beliefs can be separate. There are people who are christians/muslims by personal preference, yet completely understand it's a possibility a God might not exist. There are many non-religious people who understand it might be possible a God exists. I understood what you meant when you wrote it out the first time, and the answer is still "No, it's not".

No, it's not.

...And, as I'm sure you well realize, the opposite means nothing as well. So what, exactly, is the point?

Ummm... No. Anyone who regards an entire group of people in contempt because of their convictions, accuses them of suffering from 'mind viruses' and insinuates that they are unable to think for themselves (Remember the whole "Thinking in anathema to religion" comment?) is an idiot. Sorry. Truth hurts. Really, the fact that you actually attempt to defend some of the asinine things which have the displeasure of gracing his lips is quite astonishing.

And therein lies the source of the problem. RD is an idiot. I feel like we've had this argument before... Holds up his big, fat, flashing neon "No!" sign.

I'm not into discounting people's experiences nor am I into arguing why other religions are wrong (Which I don't. I even defend Scientology). So what about Sathya Sai Baba? I'm not into converting you or anything, but debating is interesting, hearing different points of view is interesting. On Sathya Sai Baba.. check your PM. I did read it. I don't think you understood what I wrote out. I'm not going to sit here and argue why one religion is right and another wrong, as that would involve discrediting people's personal experiences. My only aim is to argue why Christianity is true. There's a difference between the two.

I hate people like this. If I happen to log onto a world with someone (Or a group of people) already there, I'll world hop. It's a waste of time trying to fight over NPC's. You only end up annoying the other person(s) and cutting down the rate at which you gain experience.

I'm not into discounting people's experiences nor am I into arguing why other religions are wrong (Which I don't. I even defend Scientology). So what about Sathya Sai Baba?

Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to be a dumb [cabbage].

Given the large amount of manuscripts present, why wouldn't you believe it to be true? Because they're copies of the same thing; much like the works of Homer and the Beowulf poet, just because there were a lot of them doesn't mean all the events portrayed in them are true to the point of fact. There's [basically] no other angles to look at the matter from, hence the bias and uncertainty, especially when adding the supernatural. You misunderstand. We're not talking about copies of a single source, but rather thousands upon thousands of corroborating evidence from historical figures which, at the very least, indicate that many of the events depicted in the Bible did happen; that Jesus did exist; and that he said the things the Bible said he did. Really, there is no reason to believe that the events portrayed in the New Testament didn't happen, given the fact that there are multiple sources for various events which are all fairly accurate with one another (About 99.5%). If you're going to apply such a rigid standard to questioning the validity of the New Testament, then you must discredit other Classical era literature as being both less documented than the New Testament and less accurate than the New Testament. But you don't, often accepting them as true yet reject the New Testament as true. Why is that? http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm http://www.creatingfutures.net/validity.html That's not how it works. You can write as much as you want, but without substantial corroborating evidence or something to cross reference it against, it won't mean anything.

Do you REALLY want to do this? I can sit here and paste blatantly belligerent and condescending quotes from RD aimed at the religious (More specifically, those of the Abrahamic faiths) until Satan himself hands out popsicles. But then you'd probably just try to qualify them and act as if they're no big deal :lol:. Oh, and how exactly am I taking his quotes to the extreme when he makes statements such as "thinking is anathema" to religion? There is only one way to take that as much as there's only one way to take the statement "Morality is anathema to atheism". Wait wait wait... RD has a soft-spot for ENGLAND? Wow... That is, like, totally not news. It's no big secret that RD is much nicer to the English then he is anyone else. Welcome to the present. Anyway, I actually found your above statement to be quite funny, mainly because RD has often times said the exact opposite of what you claim. It's no big secret he regards religion with contempt-- He's said so himself (I even posted a quote of him saying so in this very thread). ...Which is why he believes that, in regards to science, the religious are either "know nothings", "know it alls" or "no contests"; that thinking is anathema to religion; that the religious are infected with a mind virus, etc. But, you know, go ahead and qualify these statements. I know you're going to try regardless. I would like to see you try. Really. I would.

Given the large amount of manuscripts present, why wouldn't you believe it to be true? This isn't a brain teaser. It's asinine. It's like asking if can you be the tallest person in the world.

There's a much smaller proportion of Atheists in most countries where those 3 lived, they were also during a period where much more people believed in Religion as Science still hadn't proved a lot by then. Really it's just not a good comparison. ...The 20th century? o_O

Okay. First of all, the Bible isn't just "a" book. It's a collection of books and manuscripts. Second of all, the Bible-- More specifically, the New Testament-- Is the most sourced document of the Classical era, with over 24,000 available manuscripts (The next best sourced document, iirc, is Homer's Iliad with about 450'ish manuscripts). What say you about that?

OR it could be the fact that he's a pretentious douche. I don't think people are idiots just because I disagree with them. IF that were the case, then I must sure do believe there are a lot of idiots running around on these forums. Really, it doesn't matter how many books you've sold or what honorary statuses you hold when you make such comments as "thinking is anathema to religion" and religion to 'mind viruses'. Are you telling me if I sold 1.5M books and held an honorary status at Oxford that the statement "Atheism is tantamount to communism" would be any more true? I'm thinking... Not. Srsly. Some of you guys amuse me. Hell, the guy has even admitted that he holds religion in contempt and looks down upon those who follow a certain religious faith (Especially, the Abrahamic religions). Meh... On a related but slightly dissimilar note, what do you think of these quotes by RD? And Dawkins has done neither of those. I said that a monkey makes more sense than RD, which it does.

:wall:

*Clears his throat* http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm I think that just about wraps that case up, wouldn't you say? Come one, now. Why the hell am I, the non-atheist, listening to more of what RD says than you? Either you're really not listening to the things he says/things he writes or you're just willfully ignoring them. I like the guy who called RD a real life troll who gets paid to mess with theists.

Ummm... No kidding. Which is why I've never said anything bad about him as a biologist, where's he's actually quite brilliant. It's the fact that he's a terrible theologian who makes pathetic arguments which essentially boil down to "You're an idiot" I have a problem with. Not what I'm saying. To say your interpretation is right and then declare that everyone who doesn't believe the same as you to be wrong is, well, it's hypocritical considering you lambaste others for doing the exact same thing. ...So did science? What's your point? I don't think you really want to get into a "Who has argued wrongly" more debate as I can name quite a few scientific theories (Or, should I say, hypotheses) which were accepted for a fairly long-time with those who argued otherwise being ridiculed.

How much do you want to bet on that? :lol: Unless you've got a graduate degree, then I don't think it is. ...And, as I said, it doesn't since the theory of evolution, much like all of science, attempts to provide naturalistic explanations to naturalistic phenomena. You have yet to explain how this contradicts the Bible. I mean, we know how the sun, the Earth and the moon formed. Does this contradict the Bible? Just because you claim evolution invalidates the Bible over and over again doesn't make it so. Unless you can show me, in the Bible, where it gives a scientific claim to as to how God created plants, animals, man etc., then you're just speaking out of your, well, you know. The only possible argument you can make for the theory of evolution being contradictory to the Bible is by applying your own literalist interpretations to Genesis (Which, stated yet again, have been argued against as early as the 4th century), but then you'd only be speaking for yourself and not anyone else. You have no argument. Stated for the fourth time, I don't care about the ads.

Pee emm gee. I know the educational system in the U.K. can't be this bad. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with God nor does it have anything to do with arguing against a concept of God nor does it, in the words of RD, lead one towards atheism. Either you really don't understand the theory of evolution, or you're just being obtuse for fun. Oh, and for the record, if-- Yeah, that's a big if-- You knew anything about Christianity you'd know that it was argued by St. Augustine way back in the fourth century that Genesis should not be interpreted literally. But I'm guessing you knew that. It's not some new phenomenon which just popped up. A.) I don't feel like pointing out to you that it took approximately twenty-five years for most social sciences to accept the theory of evolution, which was slightly less time than it took for most major religious denominations to accept the theory of evolution. B.) Stated yet again, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with God or about casting doubt on his existence. You really don't understand the theory of evolution, do you? Hold on a second. Lemme' see your "strong amounts of evidence to suspect he doesn't [exist]". This shall be fun. Very fun, indeed. I "strongly suspect" you're going to try to pass science of as [seriously can't think of the term now lol] but, whatever. Go ahead and amuse me. Minus two points for not understanding the basis of religious beliefs. Care to try again? ...Oh, and hooray for not understanding that the aim of defenses isn't to prove anything, but rather show why and how something could be true. You haven't been reading my responses. Stated for the third time, I don't care.