Blind faith and evolution

[LastPoet]

---

now that you've all had some time to think for yourselves and not just defend you belief like some kind of jesus fucker let me ask again,

concerning the topic of dieties only (i am not saying i don't know anything infidel)

theist - "i believe gods exist, but can't prove it"
atheist - "i do not believe gods exist, but can't prove it"

both of these ideas say the same thing: i KNOW but can't prove it to be true

agnostic - "i do not have a belief on the subject because I have no way to test the idea"

it takes a genius to admit that they don't know something they do not know, it doesn't mean you say you don't know anything.

belief = disbelief = hypothesis to conclusion without experimentation; dogma

---

agnostic atheist is therefore oxymoronic

---

Oh FFS! Can't you produce anything else than that atheist/agnostic confusion that you have in that ball of twine you call a brain. You have been corrected over and over, yet you insist disregarding everything others told you. You do realize this is a discussion forum, not your personal soapbox?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

---

now that you've all had some time to think for yourselves and not just defend you belief like some kind of jesus fucker let me ask again,

concerning the topic of dieties only (i am not saying i don't know anything infidel)

theist - "i believe gods exist, but can't prove it"
atheist - "i do not believe gods exist, but can't prove it"

both of these ideas say the same thing: i KNOW but can't prove it to be true

agnostic - "i do not have a belief on the subject because I have no way to test the idea"

it takes a genius to admit that they don't know something they do not know, it doesn't mean you say you don't know anything.

belief = disbelief = hypothesis to conclusion without experimentation; dogma

---

agnostic atheist is therefore oxymoronic

---

Oh FFS! Can't you produce anything else than that atheist/agnostic confusion that you have in that ball of twine you call a brain. You have been corrected over and over, yet you insist disregarding everything others told you. You do realize this is a discussion forum, not your personal soapbox?

Like I said, educationally sub-normal.

Despite it clearly being explained that one can be both an agnostic and an atheist, this chap simply refuses to get it. He seems to think that nobody on here is capable of saying 'I don't know', which is really one of the most stupidest things I've ever read on here, doubly so when one realises that that's the response that almost every respondent here has said they agree with.

I'm still going for troll on this one.

[LastPoet]

No argument here.

[christcahinkilla]

well with no argument it's hard to debate something isn't it?

nobody has been able to challenge the fact that no person on this planet has the knowledge of whether or not gods exist... but people choose to believe true or false on the subject (conclusion)

that's why your mad about it, you have no argument because it is a fact that what you choose to believe is presently unknown.

[Simon Moon]

theist - "i believe gods exist, but can't prove it"
atheist - "i do not believe gods exist, but can't prove it"

There is no need to have proof that a god does not exist as long as the person making the claim that a god does exist has not met their burden of proof.

You really should investigate the difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. You seem confused.

both of these ideas say the same thing: i KNOW but can't prove it to be true

No they are not.

Atheism is the response to a claim, not a claim itself.

agnostic - "i do not have a belief on the subject because I have no way to test the idea"

Nope.

The formal definition of agnostic is one that takes the position that the existence of a god is unknown, and possibly unknowable.

The vast majority of atheists hold this position.

I hate to break it to you, but if your position is that you do not have a belief (because the existence of a god is unknown) you ARE an atheist. Atheism is the absence of belief in a god. It is not the assertion that a god does not exist.

belief = disbelief = hypothesis to conclusion without experimentation; dogma

Still wrong.

Belief is the psychological state n which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. It is not a conclusion, it is a provisional position. As long as there continues to be insufficient demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I will continue to disbelieve the claim.

agnostic atheist is therefore oxymoronic

Nope.

Agnostic concerns the (lack of) KNOWLEDGE.
Atheism concerns the (lack of) BELIEF.

I do not claim to know that a god does not exist. Therefore I am agnostic by definition.

I disbelieve a god exists because the case has not met its burden of proof. Therefore I am an atheist by definition.

The 2 positions are not mutually exclusive.

nobody has been able to challenge the fact that no person on this planet has the knowledge of whether or not gods exist

True.

but people choose to believe true or false on the subject (conclusion)

Disbelieve is not a conclusion.

Let's try this.

Theist - "a god exists"

Atheist - "I don't believe your claim. Please provide me with demonstrable evidence, reasoned argument and valid & sound logic to support your claim".

The atheist in the above example is not making a conclusion, he/she is only responding to a claim that has not met its burden of proof.

[christcahinkilla]

i like a lot of what you said, and you don't have to hate to break it to me, i like that you're debating with me. Your definition of atheism is more evolved than most of your brethren.

[Simon Moon]

i like a lot of what you said, and you don't have to hate to break it to me, i like that you're debating with me. Your definition of atheism is more evolved than most of your brethren.

I can guarantee that the vast majority of atheists hold a very similar view as I do.

I have read most of what the atheists here post, and it is very similar to what I posted, although they may say it differently.

[christcahinkilla]

i feel that you are being naive on that.

i want to be a part of a group too, i think it is an emotional need that is so hard to meet in this world..

[Whateverist]

i like a lot of what you said, and you don't have to hate to break it to me, i like that you're debating with me. Your definition of atheism is more evolved than most of your brethren.

I can guarantee that the vast majority of atheists hold a very similar view as I do.

I have read most of what the atheists here post, and it is very similar to what I posted, although they may say it differently.

I think you'll find that chinchillachrist is neither atheist nor theist. Not for principled reasons but because he lacks the cognitive ability to formulate a coherent position. We shouldn't mock him. I feel sorry for him but I've got him blocked from my feed so that I don't keep responding to his chaotic ramblings as though they came from someone answerable for what they say.

[Kayenneh]

i want to be a part of a group too, i think it is an emotional need that is so hard to meet in this world..

Not if you're a pleasant person instead of a douchebag..