Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...
View Single Post
Old 09-19-2013, 10:19 AM   #94
Writing speed: snail
Numinous's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Porto, Portugal
Posts: 4,783
Thanks: 8,386
Thanked 11,563 Times in 3,932 Posts
Numinous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of lightNuminous is a glorious beacon of light
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Originally Posted by MrBIG View Post

"a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not"

"a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity"
Sure, let's cherry-pick definitions for agnostic, that sure won't backfire...

ag·nos·tic n.
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnosis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge.
In other words, agnostic simply refers to the lack of knowledge of whether a deity exists or not. It has simply been misused in the past because of both fear of the atheist label or ignorance that atheism and agnosticism do intersect.

Oh, by the way, here's a quick link for you to start acknowledging what's being said.

Not to mention once again you prove that you aren't capable of reading at all. You only see what you want to see.

What I said:
And you pull a quote I wasn't referring to attempt making me look bad. Such intellectual honesty! I was referring to the quote of kael saying what is pretty much the definition of an agnostic atheist and you saying "oh, that's not atheism, that's agnosticism". No matter how you backpedal from this, you pretty much separated atheism from agnosticism when they are intersecting and then you conflated the definition of anti-theism with atheism.

1. Just like it's possible to be an agnostic atheist, it is very much possible to also be an anti-theist and atheist at the same time.

Look into Positive/Strong atheism. They explicitly do not believe any deities exists.
Wow, you're stupid. For someone saying I can't read, you aren't that skilled in the reading habits either. I actually pointed out that anti-theists were mostly gnostic atheist, thus saying that anti-theism and atheism are also intersecting just like agnosticism and atheism are. The point I'm making and you clearly are ignoring is that anti-theism and atheism aren't synonymous.

2. My argument is that atheism is a belief. And you just agreed with me in this quote.
Sorry for repeating myself, but wow, you're stupid. Atheists do hold different beliefs but I didn't mention they were about atheism itself, you dolt. Some atheists hold beliefs that also are answers to the metaphysical, like knowing there is no God or that spirits exist. HOWEVER, the rest of atheists do not hold such belief and is not by some atheists holding such beliefs that will make atheism a belief. A belief requires a positive statement, and atheism is a negative statement, therefore incompatible only by itself with the concept of belief.

Lack of belief in something with no evidence to disprove or prove its case is in fact a belief.
Except it isn't. Again I say, a belief requires a positive statement as basis. It's illogical to make a negative claim a belief, or else the word "disbelief" wouldn't exist.

Religion for very long and still is for billions around a globe a provider in moral values.

This is the reason I brought up morals.
So you're mixing apples and oranges just because they happen to be fruits. Also morality is independent of religion, so please don't come with non-sequitur and stick to the topic.

Couldn't be further from the truth. Now different moral behaviors is part of Darwin's evolutionary theory? what the hell?

So people with good morals are selected for while the ones with bad morals are eliminated from the gene pool????? You're evolutionary claim would mean that morals are genetic.

Evolution has nothing to do with societies ability to change its view points.
Not now, that humans achieved civilization, but before that evolution DID have a part to play in our morals and it still does in other species. The instinct of protecting the young, of working for the clan/pride/colony/etc and not just oneself, of not aimlessly slaughter individuals of the same species, these are the foundations of morals because doing that would promote the propagation of the species instead of its demise.

So yes, our morals can be traced back to Darwinian principals, they just, pardon the pun, evolved from them with civilization and society.

LOL it's funny how you use "societal causes" as base for your claim that morals are inherent to human beings. That doesn't make sense AT ALL.

Yes the society you are born in will shape your moral beliefs but in no way is a baby born with these beliefs already inherited from their parents.
Funny how you quickly go for the ridicule without even thinking of the simple fact that humans have the capacity of learning (and teaching) and that they already have the basis of morals hardwired in their brain due to evolutionary processes. Not only that, morality has been an heirloom from generation to generation, always changing. If humans didn't have an inherent capacity for morals, how could newer generations modify the morality of older generations?
My writings and ramblings:

Water of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2
Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1 - 2 - 3

Last edited by Numinous; 09-19-2013 at 10:21 AM.
Numinous is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Numinous For This Useful Post:
kael03 (09-19-2013), Miburo (10-07-2013)