I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

Yes, which means you are an agnostic theist.

Why doesn't it mean I'm an agnostic atheist? I would be more inclined to consider myself and agnostic agnostic.

---

This thread...

ha ha so true.

---

Not at all. I don't believe or disbelieve, as I have no reason to justify either. Can I say I 50% believe and 50% disbelieve?

Disbelief is inherent with lack of evidence. You have got to be kidding me.
There is no way you are serious. I don't believe you to be real.

You either believe --> Affirmative position
Believe the inverse, or believe that x is untrue --> Affirmative position
Or disbelieve --> Neutral position.

You have to be one. If you aren't... you exist outside logic.

That's enough to qualify you as a theist, in my opinion.

I don't understand your conclusion. As I claim I'm neutral I should be a atheist by your logic as I don't believe.

---

I don't think anyone starts with a blank slate, you could be 'hardcoded' to believe something is a viable way to reach a conclusion (e.g. by religious or scientific method) and then convinced when you found what was required for you to be convinced.

Bullshit. No one is born with either religion or science.

Religion is certainly often brainwashed into people, but the scientific method has been adopted because it is tried and true, quite unlike religion. Religion comes up with great proclamations like "the world is flat" and "the sun and stars revolve around the earth". Science, because it is objective and not based in pathological lies and superstition, disproves such woo.

Religion or science have not done enough to convince me that either should be applied as sole source of knowledge/truth.

That's rich. And tell us what your background and understanding of science is.

I may be hard-coded that way.

To stupidity and willful ignorance? Perhaps.

[qutoe] For some they have done enough. I see little difference in those that have been convinced by religion or science, apart of course from what they have been convinced by - the application of both is identical.

Lovely appeal to your own willful ignorance.

Much like how fascism and communism are similar.

Yeah I thought that as a teenager too. Wait a few years when you realise that you'll need to go lot deeper if you actually want to consider this to a meaningful level. Otherwise, just skim the surface and keep it as superficial as possible.

And how old are you now, whelp, that you have gained this "vast understanding"? <cough cough>

---

I don't need religion or science to be complete.

Good. Neither do I. Now go away, troll.

I think most religiously inclined people do, it's as if they need the answers and will manufacture them from either science or an available religion. Claiming some form of 'absolute' truth just stinks of self-righteousness to me.

Which science does not claim. It's sheer idiocy to paint religion and science with the same broad brush as you do.

I'm just here to let you know I view atheists and theists as very similar,

In other words, to let us know that you are a special kind of stupid.

both look to shape an answer from something which is currently unknown and possibly unknowable.

Which means you don't know fuck about science. PIss off.

You may view that as looking for a fight, or a debate. Take it as you will, I can't control whether you do or don't see me as combative.

We see you as the idiotic troll you are.

[qutoe]I have absolutely no idea how anyone can reach any conclusion in the light of , or a lack of evidence.

Which is a good reason to disdain religion. But again, that is not how science operates. Not even close.

It just seems like people are trying to apply some control on something they have no control over. I keep waiting for an atheist or theist to say something of value which actually elucidates their perspective beyond what has been said 1000 times before.

Hear to hear with your head up your ass.

---

Yes, rinse and repeat.

I don't expect to convince the converted of anything.

You see, the difference is that YOU are converted, we are enlightened.

If you can outline for me why that as the universe has a 0 energy and that causality is dismissed (due to the big bang creating time) then yay, the "Atheists are right" and I'll be on my merry way.

Have any of us here made that claim? you creotards and your war against evolution, the Big Bang, and science are a laughingstock. It doesn't take a bit of understanding of astrophysics to see for oneself that The Emperor Has No Fucking Clothes.

I must admit the irony of being called a troll by coming to a forum which purpose is to troll is not lost on me, although I'm sure it would be on you.

So you think we are trolling by our very existence. How droll. it just pisses you off that we can be here and speak up. So much that you come here and make an embarrassment of yourself.

If it makes you feel any better I'm a creationist

REALLY???? We might never have guessed...

and evolution is a devil's concept.

What's a devil?

Ha I love it. "Don't you dare interfere with our affirmations".

Says the guy who calls evolution "a devil's concept". Did the irony knock you over when you wrote that?

More like this forum has seen hundreds of trolls just like you and we all know where this is heading.

---

There you go, science is your religion.

Sorry to disappoint you. We are not in need of superstitions of any kind.

Most atheists seem reluctant to admit it, possibly because it could appear that they have a crutch?

Because it is so preposterous that it would take a drooling idiot to assert something so preposterous.

---

I find it funny as fuck that the OP implies that one being in a wheel chair and being a scientist is somehow invalid when referring to metaphysics while the presuppositions inside OP's lint-filled head are not.

Tell me, do all the inmates at the asylum know the answers too? Or are you the only one?

Also, does your boss know you're posting from work?

I'm fairly certain he'd love to hear one of his employees using the company's vpn to troll remotely.

---

o it stands to reason that if we continue to get involved in them, at least some of us are searching for some sort of absolute truth; otherwise those people would just walk away.

Not really. It's really just a matter of keeping the floor clean and free of puppy piles.

I'm guessing that the OP is agnostic, and thinks it's arrogant of either camp to claim the higher ground or victory in the debate, seeing as neither can absolutely prove the other wrong.

OP has already admitted being a creotard.

Further, I would imagine that the OP feels that atheists put too much stock in scientific methods, without have carried out experiments to verify that they work, and in doing so are as dogmatic as theists in their belief.

Merely demonstrating his utter ignorance of what science is and how it works.

---

lol I totally missed that, having only skimmed over all the back and forth from page 2 onwards. My bad.

You're over-feeding the toll, he'll get fat.