Fandom Forums

Fandom Forums (http://www.fandom.com/forums//index.php)
-   Spam Zone (http://www.fandom.com/forums//forumdisplay.php?f=164)
-   -   0-)0=-0 (http://www.fandom.com/forums//showthread.php?t=61022)

Scientia 08-06-2010 10:40 PM

0-)0=-0
 
Agnosticism: The belief that you can't believe or not believe in God (meaning you have to not not believe), unless you know, despite the fact that believing is completely different from knowing, and the fact that there's plenty of things that they don't know but will probably believe in during the span of their normal lives. And, the fact that not not believing is the exact same thing as believing (automatically making you a theist). Two negatives equal a positive, fucking morons. Learn 2 logic. Because surley, your position is the most logical of all.

I made this one day. Am I spot on?

And yeah, I know what Agnosticism really is. "What you (don't) know, not what you (don't) believe."

Miburo 08-07-2010 04:01 AM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Er, yeah. But uh, yeah. You don't need to do the double negative semantic thing to show agnosticism is stupid.

It's all about burden of proof. If someone says god exists, then they have to prove it. Since they can't, the logical stance is the default: Non-existence. That is super basic logic, and applies to everything. Not just god's existence or whatever. Agnosticism train of thought isn't logical, and is completely fucking useless for anything else.

Agnostics are idiots. If they're not complete retards then they're just atheists who don't understand the concept of "not believing in something =/= denying it's ability to ever exist, ever." That's probably the least stupid type of agnostic person. Which isn't saying much. Because, seriously, when talking about this stupid god existing shit, it's a pretty simple subject. Either you believe in god, or you don't. Pick one, you fucking pseudo-intellectual, fence-sitting, pansy dumbshits.

kluang 08-07-2010 05:15 AM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Religious people who dont pray?

Scientia 08-10-2010 07:51 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo (Post 1859400)
Er, yeah. But uh, yeah. You don't need to do the double negative semantic thing to show agnosticism is stupid.

I don't think it's semantics. Whether you apply terms like Theism or Gnosticism or not, the concept of having to either believe in a god or not is still there. Or are we talking about a different kind of semantics here?

It's impossible to be somewhere in between, because even if you're unsure whether or not God exists, you're either going to be believing in him or not. Believing in something requires a mind-set, not believing doesn't. A good analogy that Krpi once said (the basic analogy is his; it's not word for word, though):

It's like deciding whether you're going to go into a restaurant later for dinner, and if so, which restaurant you will choose. Even if you're unsure which restaurant to go into, or whether or not you're going to even go to a restaurant at all, you're still going to be either inside or outside of a restaurant. Period.

I'm sure you know, but the restaurants represent religion.

You can't not have an active belief in god and not not believe in him at the same time. The former implies you don't believe while the latter implies you do. Both of which completely contradict each other. It's pure logic, right? Where's the semantics, here?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo (Post 1859400)
It's all about burden of proof. If someone says god exists, then they have to prove it. Since they can't, the logical stance is the default: Non-existence. That is super basic logic, and applies to everything. Not just god's existence or whatever.

It also has to do with being negative and positive claims as well. If I make the claim that God doesn't exist, I don't have to prove it, because, how could I if the negative ended up being true? If God really doesn't exist, how could I prove such a thing? There would always be loop holes for theists to pray upon.

If I say that he never had it, and then we checked him and he didn't have it, is that really proof that he didn't have it at one point? Truth is, it's not, it just means he doesn't have it on him anymore.

Logically, you never really have to prove negative claims when reagarding beliefs, only positive ones. That's what I think, anyway. What about you? lol, not like I have to ask.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo (Post 1859400)
Agnostics are idiots. If they're not complete retards then they're just atheists who don't understand the concept of "not believing in something =/= denying it's ability to ever exist, ever." That's probably the least stupid type of agnostic person. Which isn't saying much.

Well, I think the smartest Agnostic would be me or you, the kind who realize what Agnosticism really is: what you know. I mean, sure, what you know does in fact affect what you believe. However, just because we don't believe in God, doesn't mean we know for sure whether he exists or not. I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in God, but I don't know whether he exists for sure or not, and I'm sure you're the same. I think when applying the concept of the term properly, anyone who's even remotely logical would be an agnostic. But instead somehow people want to stay in some kind of fucking hidden interstice where they can say they aren't believers but aren't non-believers either, which doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.

And don't get me wrong, I get the point of your post, and that was to say that I left out the part about the default stance. I'm just trying to discuss some of the other things I think about it with you, you sexy bitch.

Miburo 08-10-2010 08:35 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Fayrra (Post 1861605)
I don't think it's semantics. Whether you apply terms like Theism or Gnosticism or not, the concept of having to either believe in a god or not is still there. Or are we talking about a different kind of semantics here?

It's impossible to be somewhere in between, because even if you're unsure whether or not God exists, you're either going to be believing in him or not. Believing in something requires a mind-set, not believing doesn't. A good analogy that Krpi once said (the basic analogy is his; it's not word for word, though):

It's like deciding whether you're going to go into a restaurant later for dinner, and if so, which restaurant you will choose. Even if you're unsure which restaurant to go into, or whether or not you're going to even go to a restaurant at all, you're still going to be either inside or outside of a restaurant. Period.

I'm sure you know, but the restaurants represent religion.

You can't not have an active belief in god and not not believe in him at the same time. The former implies you don't believe while the latter implies you do. Both of which completely contradict each other. It's pure logic, right? Where's the semantics, here?

If this is what you meant when you posted this stuff:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fayrra (Post 1859282)
And, the fact that not not believing is the exact same thing as believing (automatically making you a theist). Two negatives equal a positive, fucking morons.

then okay. That works just fine. The thing you just posted above is a good argument. The original argument was correct too, but I wouldn't consider it a well-worded argument. Uh, at all. =p

What you just posted is what you should use when debating. That works.


Quote:

It also has to do with being negative and positive claims as well. If I make the claim that God doesn't exist, I don't have to prove it, because, how could I if the negative ended up being true? If God really doesn't exist, how could I prove such a thing? There would always be loop holes for theists to pray upon.

If I say that he never had it, and then we checked him and he didn't have it, is that really proof that he didn't have it at one point? Truth is, it's not, it just means he doesn't have it on him anymore.

Logically, you never really have to prove negative claims when reagarding beliefs, only positive ones. That's what I think, anyway. What about you? lol, not like I have to ask.
I personally think it's best to just not make any claim of non-existence. It's just a fuckload easier that way. I just say "I don't believe in any God, because no one has presented any reason why I logically should." I don't need to even state that there is no god. Just that there isn't any reason to believe that there is one. Avoids the whole mess completely.

Which I think is the best thing to do when debating this particular topic, if you're just going for the kill right away. Make them focus solely on proving their claims of existence, and just point out the flaws in their arguments.
Quote:


Well, I think the smartest Agnostic would be me or you, the kind who realize what Agnosticism really is: what you know. I mean, sure, what you know does in fact affect what you believe. However, just because we don't believe in God, doesn't mean we know for sure whether he exists or not. I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't believe in God, but I don't know whether he exists for sure or not, and I'm sure you're the same. I think when applying the concept of the term properly, anyone who's even remotely logical would be an agnostic. But instead somehow people want to stay in some kind of fucking hidden interstice where they can say they aren't believers but aren't non-believers either, which doesn't make any sense what-so-ever.

And don't get me wrong, I get the point of your post, and that was to say that I left out the part about the default stance. I'm just trying to discuss some of the other things I think about it with you, you sexy bitch.
See, I just hate the whole concept of agnosticism. I refuse to use the term to describe myself. I don't think the topic of god's existence is special. It's just like anything else. I don't believe in magical dragons. That doesn't mean I know for a fact magical dragons don't exist. Any stupid made up thing could exist. We don't have a special term we use when talking about goddamn made up magical shit though. I'm not a agnostic amagicalshitist. I don't believe in made up magical shit. And it should be a given that I knew it could exist, and if a magical dragon flew up to me and said "sup" I'd reconsider my stance. No one should have to specify the fact that they're not irrational morons when stating their disbelief in something.

I don't believe in any God. I'm an atheist. Of course if someone proved God's existence, I'd reconsider my stance. Just like I would with any other stance of mine if new evidence was presented that contradicted it. And of course there is an inherent level of doubt present in regards to god's non-existence. Just like there is an inherent level of doubt in all of knowledge. We could be wrong about literally anything. Don't see the need to specify that with anything else. The belief in god isn't any different, because it's not a magical topic deserving it's own special rules and shit.

Using the term "agnostic atheist" to me is like saying "Not a completely fucking retarded atheist." Should I really have to put that in there? I dunno. I personally don't think it's necessary. = )

Ninja48 08-11-2010 05:09 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Whas goin on here.

Wiki:Qualifying Agnosticism

Miburo 08-11-2010 09:18 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ninja48 (Post 1862129)
Whas goin on here.

Wiki:Qualifying Agnosticism

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki
Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.[12] He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (i.e. tautologies such as "all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three corners"). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that...." For instance, when one says, "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the alarm might break, or one might die before the alarm goes off).

Yeah, that's good shit. We operate based on the knowledge we have. Otherwise, everything would be stupid as fuck. Technically, a goddamn wizard or some shit could make gravity magically stop working, causing the atmosphere to go poof and we'll all die. Or whatever. But we operate as if that is stupid and not going to happen, since there is no reason to think it will happen.

So, yeah. There is an inherent level of doubt in most everything. But we just ignore that fact. Since it's completely useless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki
Agnosticist (also called "faithless" or "factual agnosticism")
The Agnosticist is absent of belief, where theism and atheism require faith that there is or is not a deity or deities. An Agnosticist would say, "I neither have a belief in a deity nor do I have a belief in the absence of such a deity."

Stupid. If you don't believe in a deity, but don't believe that one doesn't exist, then you still don't believe in any deities. You're an atheist.

Quote:

Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Stupid. You can't know anything then. "I dunno if this pie tastes good or not, because we all might be in the goddamn matrix, which is just tricking my brain into thinking it's yummy (assuming I have a brain and actually exist, etc.) lololol" Way to be completely intellectually useless.

Quote:

Weak agnosticism (also called "soft," "open," "empirical," or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is evidence we can find something out."
Stupid. "There is no reason to believe a magical dragon lives under my porch, but I'm not going to risk forming an opinion either way because one day a wizard might happen by and do a magical dragon check. That way I can be sure."

Quote:

Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.
Stupid. "I don't think it's worth taking a millisecond to form a logical opinion about this (Meaning I probably lack any belief in a deity, meaning I'm an atheist anyway), but I've thought about it enough to label myself as an apathetic agnostic."

Quote:

Agnostic atheism
Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not have belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.
Stupid. That's just called an atheist. You don't have to say something definitely can't exist to not believe in it.

Quote:

Agnostic theism
The view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence.
Really fucking stupid. "I don't think there is any evidence showing something exists, but I believe in it anyway lolol!"


Goddamn, I fucking hate agnostics.

RNB 08-11-2010 09:48 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
I don't really feel like debating Hume, but he was against the validity of the senses. In other words, he says that there is a difference between the things we see and the things that are. My objection, which I think is both Aristotle and Ayn Rand's, is that you cannot know something as it is until you sense it. You don't know what "1" is until you have used your senses to determine what "1" is.

Calling Hume an agnostic would be wrong anyways, since I am pretty sure he considered himself to be an atheist. Either way, it really undermines his thought, which has been pretty influential. Hume is considered to be one of the major philosophers, which is ironic since he is really similar to Plato. Ayn Rand is similar to Aristotle and gets all sorts of shit for it, but I guess one more common-sense philosopher is already too much (even though Aristotle and Ayn Rand are not identical).

There are way too many differences between atheists/agnostics for them all to be lumped together. The most basic thing would be to label based on one's epistemological stance, since it avoids all of the stupid misunderstandings.

Tsuna 08-11-2010 10:09 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
tl ; dr

RNB 08-11-2010 10:14 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsuna (Post 1862225)
Too dumb; can't read

It's alright. There are a lot of illiterate people these days.

Though it isn't like you can read this either.

A for http://philspector.files.wordpress.c...9/09/apple.jpg

Tsuna 08-11-2010 10:17 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Not really, I just can't be fucked. I'm so tired of all these recycled arguments about religion or lack thereof. Thanks for being a douche though, appreciate it.

RNB 08-11-2010 10:21 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsuna (Post 1862231)
Not really, I just can't be fucked. I'm so tired of all these recycled arguments about religion or lack thereof. Thanks for being a douche though, appreciate it.

I really appreciate what you have contributed to this thread. It's something fresh and new that I've never heard before.

Tsuna 08-11-2010 10:25 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RNB
I really appreciate what you have contributed to this thread.

omgikr. <3


Seriously though lol who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? I'm not sure I really deserved such hatred for just a random comment. ):

RNB 08-11-2010 10:28 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
I was trolling the easiest person to troll on this site. Originally I was just being a smart-ass, but your second post had that bite to it where my Spidey sense started tingling.

Tsuna 08-11-2010 10:32 PM

Re: 0-)0=-0
 
LOL well I can never tell with you. I'm cool with everyone else to the point where I know what their deal is. You and OG are the two people I have issues figuring out whether you're kidding or actually attacking me. >_>


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.