Rebdragon

[Good start... hahaha... c'mon] *Wanna [bleep]?

Where'd You Go - Fort Minor The video's so deep T_T

It's like that (urban legend?) Cambridge study. We really do read the word as a whole. Like... consistently... for like three years... every time... Seriously, what the hell.

In all the time I've been here I can honestly say that I never noticed that. Wow.

CONFIDENCE REPLY #1000 MUAHAHAHA.

I too am egerly waiting... Read the title again...

Sly, I just read your argument on the last page four times and, apart from where you somehow read the analogy differently, I still don't see where you disagree with me. It feels like we're both arguing with air rather than each other :| . I don't think there's anything "intercorrelated to connect each group to the other", I just think "weak atheist" rolls off the tongue better than "man who is atheist and also follows agnosticism". It's just a word to make talking easier mate.

I don't get it. Are you creating a different analogy or actually using mine? I thought I just explained that you did it wrong. By the analogy, it should go as such: Atheism: Parent (realm) Agnosticism: Gender (realm) Weak/Strong Atheism: Mother/Father (both realms) Now, for the second time, if you're going to counter my analogy actually use it, instead of looking like you're straw man'n me (ugh, I hate debate terminology...). That^ is it. Simple. Heck, actually, you don't even need to look at any of that. I agree with you- agnosticism and atheism are not the same, period. Can you stop arguing with me about something I've already told you I agree on, and get to the point of why you think the idea of "weak atheism" is unnecessary and trivial? I just don't get why you agree with me but somehow come to a completely different conclusion (to essentially everyone here) about this. You better as hell not be playing devil's advocate; I'm far past my glory days of debate to care enough to drag something like that out, especially over a debate like this that has been beaten to death like no other.

No one ever said they are compatible. Being a parent and being of a certain gender really don't have anything to do with each other, considering they are of different realms. It's just easier to say "mother" than to say "parent who is a woman". That's what "weak atheism" is- an easier way of saying "atheist who also follows agnosticism". Basically, you're arguing that they're non-compatible, and I'm saying that that non-compatability is the reason why the term even exists. EDIT: Oi, noticed a twist you made in my analogy just now. You said gender classifies whether you'll be a mother or father, and then went on to place agnosticism in the place of gender and atheism in the place of mother/father. That is an error- the proper term to put in place of the mother of father is the parallel joining term, "weak atheism", making the prior term, agnosticism (or atheism), a pre-requisite (for weak atheism), like you said.

The edit^: it is because they are of different realms that someone being both an agnostic and and an atheist is possible. The terms Christian in Muslim are of the same realm, as well as atheist and theist. But a/theist and agnostic are not of the same realm. They are not even of the same spectrum- that is a misinterpretation of what being agnostic is. The realms are completely different. Like my analogy above, a person can't be both a female and a male (eh... besides that), but they can be a parent and a female/male. The joining of these two characteristics, which are of different realms, allows for the possibility of the creation of a simpler term that joins them together ("father" and "mother"). That is what "weak atheism" is- two terms put into one.

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, in much the same way that someone can be both a parent and a female- that is, a "mother". The term merely joins the two characteristucs of a person into one simple term. Honestly, if they were the same thing, what would be the point of the term joining them together?

That's what I love about minimum requirements. Almost everyone at least says 5,6/10 or higher, but in reality that doesn't add up to the realm of possibility :) . Which is sad considering I'm arrogant enough to go to 7/10 bar minimum sometimes, which is completely unjustified in considering myself hehe. Summary: handsome and rich pl0x -_- Not really, just having nice looks/hair/eyes etc are a bonus. (Do I REALLY come off like that?) Eh... yes. Which, again, is why I suggested a change of topic. General attractiveness is too universal for this to ever be interesting.

PARADOX Heh, I noticed that one too. Apparently the drive for the perfect girl has gone even farther into the realm of impossibilty and stupid fantasy :D .

About what? I've made a couple posts; I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Why can't God have a hand in evolution? Why? The universe, if not the multiverse, is a pretty big place. I don't see why unicorns couldn't exist somewhere. As ven pointed out, this is kind of necessary.

You can't honestly tell me you can sit there and deny my body :-$ What body? You look like an average person. :| --------Sarcasm----------- --------Your head------------ [/hide] Sarcasm doesn't transfer over the internet well, especially when you've posted topless pictures of yourself and contributed to numerous "I can bench press 350" topics. That sarcasm did buddeh. I'm going to be bored by this thread until one: someone posts something that isn't the exact same thing as other posts, or two: more than three girls post (at least hoping for a little of number one in those posts as well). Until then all this thread is about is guys all saying the exact same thing for ten pages straight to other guys. No offense, that's just the way it is- basic attractiveness is fairly universal. I think what would be more interesting than "your perfect mate* " would be "what you're willing to settle for". What are the minimum requirements that you absolutely have to have before you straight out need to deny them? *Imagine if it was only girls here. RIPPED RICH MONEY TALL MONEY MONEY MUSCULAR RICH MONEY MONEY TALL MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY TALL MONEY LEAN RICH COOL BIG HAHA Someone with an interesting personality and kind heart. GIRL SHUT THE HELL UP SUPAR EDIT

All of the characteristics none of you have :thumbup: .

Actually, no I'm not one of those people. No, no, my rapist senses are definitely tingling.

God DAMMIT. Stop [bleep]ing patting yourself on the back about creating a topic that's been around for MILLENIA before you were even a single cell. Ugh. It needed to be said mate.

False. On the former.

Strong atheism: God doesn't exist. Assuming a negative. I am not justifying theism, nor denying atheism as a whole. I'm merely saying that I don't understand how agnosticism isn't logical from your point of view. EDIT: If we're both agnostics I don't see why we're arguing, when our point of view is the same :-k .

a) No evidence that he doesn't. B) If definitions are kept loose, no reason to think a higher "creator" being doesn't exist, c) No way to measure the odds. Strong atheism makes almost as many assumptions as theism. Agnosticism makes no assumptions whatsoever. How the hell does Occam's razor favor atheism over agnosticism?

Hehe, you know you're a nerd when...

No one said it doesn't work. All that was stated was that it was a weak and pathetic way of getting a girl, not to mention stupid :D .