(July 19, 2013 at 11:20 pm)christcahinkilla Wrote: no see, agnosticism is acknowledging they dont know, the wikipedia definition is really good. i like agnostic thinkers, i would consider myself one.

atheists do have a belief on an unknown subject.

the difference is this

"i do not believe in a god or gods" could be motivated by a hate for god or gods

"i do not have any belief in the subject of whether or not there is a god or gods" is admitting you don't know and that we do not have the means to know at this time.

huge difference.

But you are interpreting the first in a particular way.

I do not believe in gods because there is no evidence.

This is not the same as saying that I have evidence or proof that there are no gods.

(July 19, 2013 at 10:53 pm)christcahinkilla Wrote: is there any reason why you claim to be an atheist and have a quote under your name that says "I say Fuck the man in the sky!" when you claim to not believe in a god or gods?

I put what movie the quotes are from. It's a story where life is like it is now but humanity never came up with the concept of lieing. Then the main character of the movie invented for the first time in the history of humanity saying something that was "Not".

He lied. He invented lieing. But there's no word for lie.

Then his old mother is dying and she tells him that she is scared. So he uses his new invention in the hospital to tell her not be scared. That she's going to a wonderful place when she dies and everything she ever loved will be there. No pain, the most wonderful thing imaginable.

The doctors and nurses overhear him say this and everyone asks him how he knows all this. So he starts lieing and invents the lie of god and heaven and all this made up stuff. And everyone believes him because no one has ever known how to lie. He's the first one. He invented it.

So a crowd gathers around his house and he makes up the lie of a god, and the god is responsible for everything.

So the crowd starts asking him about the good things they've experienced in life and ask him if the "man in the sky" caused that to happen. He says yes.

But then they start asking him about all the really bad things that happened to them in life and ask him if the "man in the sky" caused people to get cancer, or die in car wrecks, or whatever. He reluctantly says yes.

So they say, "Fuck the man in the sky!"

Hilarious movie. Check it out.

Ok, let's try it this way: Are invisible pink unicorns having karaoke party somewhere in the world:
A) I don't know
B) They don't and I can prove it
C) I don't believe that they do although I can't prove it

popeyespappy Wrote:Oh and where the fuck does evolution and the Big Bang figure into this again?

they are sometimes used by atheist to 'disprove' creation.

---

(July 19, 2013 at 11:38 pm)wwjs Wrote: Ok, let's try it this way: Are invisible pink unicorns having karaoke party somewhere in the world:
A) I don't know
B) They don't and I can prove it
C) I don't believe that they do although I can't prove it

i don't see how you have debated my argument, "i don't believe" is a conclusion, the first step to determining scientific truth is to have a hypothesis and the next is to determine whether it is testable. if not then to have a belief or disbelief (conclusion) is called dogmatism.

Ok so your answer would be you don't know if they have a party, correct?

wwjs: until i have searched every square inch of the planet it would be unknown to me.. and were talking about deities here not unicorns and parties, so stay on topic, have you or anyone you know searched every square inch of the universe?

and please re-read my last post and debate the argument.

Rahul: that sounds like a funny movie i might check it out.

Chas: the way i am interpreting it is based on my experience/experimentation on the matter, there is a large percent of atheists that at one point believed in god(s) that now have a hatred to those god(s) and in a lot of ways to me that's what atheism is. agnosticism is a much more broad and open concept that allows for a lot more freedom from hatred in my opinion.

and it's not that there is no evidence, it's that there is no way for us at the present to determine whether or not there is or is not any evidence, it's closer to the truth in my opinion.

I didn't wanted to start OT, just to understand if you automatically apply your agnosticism to everything that is unknowable (or very hard to prove).

(July 20, 2013 at 12:15 am)christcahinkilla Wrote: wwjs: until i have searched every square inch of the planet it would be unknown to me.. and were talking about deities here not unicorns and parties, so stay on topic, have you or anyone you know searched every square inch of the universe?

and please re-read my last post and debate the argument.

Rahul: that sounds like a funny movie i might check it out.

Chas: the way i am interpreting it is based on my experience/experimentation on the matter, there is a large percent of atheists that at one point believed in god(s) that now have a hatred to those god(s) and in a lot of ways to me that's what atheism is. agnosticism is a much more broad and open concept that allows for a lot more freedom from hatred in my opinion.

and it's not that there is no evidence, it's that there is no way for us at the present to determine whether or not there is or is not any evidence, it's closer to the truth in my opinion.

I don't know that "there is no way for us at the present to determine whether or not there is or is not any evidence" has any value.

There is no evidence that we know of - and people have searched.

(July 19, 2013 at 11:39 pm)christcahinkilla Wrote:

popeyespappy Wrote:Oh and where the fuck does evolution and the Big Bang figure into this again?

they are sometimes used by atheist to 'disprove' creation.

Just because an atheist argues for the Big Bang or evolution and against creationism does not make either of those things a part of atheism.

The Big Bang is a cosmological model that describes the early development of the universe. It is the model that most cosmologists believe provides the best explanation for observed facts. It is however not the only cosmological model. Many cosmologists prefer alternative theories to explain the same facts.

Evolution as defined as the changes in a gene pool over time is an observed fact. There is no debate over this. There are a few that deny this fact, but that denial is based in ignorance. Common decent, the theory that all known species are descended from a common ancestor, is but a subset of evolution. All known relevant facts support both evolution in general, and common decent in particular. To put it another way no known relevant facts conflict with either evolution or common decent.

So if you have an alternative theory to explain the diversity of life then please feel free to share it with us. But please be aware that even if you somehow manage to disprove common decent it neither disproves evolution in general nor proves goddidit unless you can actually prove that god did indeed do it.

i wouldn't try to prove or disprove either, i am comfortable admitting that i don't know.

---

people have searched, yes, but how far are we? we are still on one planet in a solar system that is one tiny part of a galaxy that is only one little piece of the universe.