Fandom Forums - View Single Post - Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...
View Single Post
Old 09-21-2013, 12:04 AM   #130
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 172
Thanks: 129
Thanked 97 Times in 55 Posts
MrBIG is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: Debate: Speed Vs Power/Strength...

Originally Posted by Numinous View Post
It's funny how MrBig complains about debating definitions and semantics
Where have I complained?

when he flunks at them hard. MrBig,
In your eyes maybe.If it makes you feel any better, you;ve shown little to no comprehension of gramatical syntax nor semantics.

It's ridiculous because you either are too blind or too stubborn to notice the huge difference between the definitions. Let me accentuate it so you can notice:
Agnostic people do not have a definite belief in god(s) (they neither believe nor disbelief) because the required knowledge/evidence/facts to make such a decision is unavailable.

Like I posted before, the root of the word "agnostic" is gnosis, knowledge, not belief, so saying that the definition of agnosticism is based on belief is misguided.
Im saying that agnosticism is based on the lack of belief and disbelief without evidence and the required knowledge to make such a decision.

Then you're doing it wrong, use the proper term: apathetic agnosticism.
Apatheism has nothing to do with what im discussing here.
An Apthetic agnostic doesn't CARE about the question of wether God exsits or not, because it's "impossible" to know.

While a pure agnostic does question himself about the existence of god and came to the conclusion that he has no definite answer.

Because when you talk about Agnosticism without specification, you ARE referring also to agnostic atheism and agnostic theism.
When I talk aout Agnosticism I talk about it's pure sense not a hybridize form.

Agnostic: God himself is an entity that may or may not exist so I do not believe nor disbelief in him without proper evidence to supprot either claim.

source 1, source 2, source 3

Agnostic atheism: God is an entity that may or may not exist so i disbelieve in his existence until evidence proves the contrary. (null hypothesis for them is thus atheism)

source 1, source 2, source 3.

Agnostic theist: God is an entity that may or may not exist, however I believe in his existence until evidence is shown proving the contrary.

source 1, source 2

"Quick, let me cherry-pick a link that supports my usage of words and completely ignore the overwhelming majority of links that use agnostic atheism!"
Pathetic really, I picked a source backing my argument. If you believe it to be wrong provide evidence proving the contrary, it's simple. Learn how to properly formulate an argument.

Atheistic agnosticism = Agnostic atheism

the same as

Narcissistic perfectionism = Perfectionistic narcissism.

inversion of the two words does not change the meaning. You're arguing now about a trivial technicality, it's pathetic. Its a keen to basing your argument on a typo while knowing what your "opponent" meant.

And you put the same quote when you say that his agnostic atheism isn't atheism, is agnosticism, pretty much contradicting when you bolded and redded. Jesus, you can't proofread for shit.
Once again, you further prove your lack of reading comprehension.

I said the man wasn't an atheist but possibly an agnostic or agnostic atheist.

I've provided sources earlier that prove that the they are not mutually exclusive but however are different in their purest form.

Funny how that last thing wasn't what you said. "I don't believe God exists" ISN'T the same as "I believe God doesn't exist" like you were trying to say atheism was claiming.

Then, my friend, you really suck at English. Hard.

In a matter of fact, almost every language has cases where the different placement of words can change entirely the meaning of a phrase. For example, in Portuguese "uma filha rica" means "a rich daughter", but "uma rica filha" means "a good/beautiful daughter" and all that was done was swapping the placement of the noun and the adjective.
What a failure of an analogy/example. Im not swapping words, I'm changing the connotation of declarative sentences from positive to negative without changing it's meaning.


Likewise, "I don't believe God exists" and "I believe God doesn't exist" have different meanings.
  • The first is the negation of a positive claim ("I believe God exists"), thus a negative claim. It also doesn't postulate anything on the existence of God, only on the disbelief of the claim.
  • The latter makes a claim of God's non-existence as if the person saying that knew of said non-existence (much like gnostic theists say they know God exists), thus it being a positive claim.
That said, the first claim is atheistic and the latter is anti-theistic and they are capable of intersection, but they're not synonymous as you're trying to say they are. Get it now or do I really have to draw a picture for you?
My word, it doesn't matter how hard you try to jam this positive vs negative claim theory you have down my throat. It doesn't make it true.


So your attempts at using this same grammatical rule to somehow prove a difference between atheism and anti-theism is bogus.

This is some god damn Junior high level shit right here (or even maybe lower on the education scale), I can't believe I have to argue such simple grammatical rules with you.

All dinosaurs are dead - Positive claim
There are no living dinosaurs - Negative claim

Meaning remains the same.

HOWEVER THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATHEISM and ANTI-THEISM, I do not claim that they are the same.

an atheism simply believes that God doesn't exist.

An anti-thesis not only does not believe in an existence of God, but believe religion itself is evil/bad/terrible etc. He is against the entire concept of faith/religion/Gods and their doctrines. An atheist that actively opposes religion.

source 1, source 2, source 3.

I'll skip most of the morality bit, since you still are ramming on and on and still didn't said a thing about where do morals come from to even make it plausible to be discussing them anyway

if you're actually oblivious as to how moral development works then I wonder why you even bothered arguing about it with me.

Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development
(his work on morality is one of the most quoted and accepted in the psychology field.)

Morals are a learnt behavior

Cultural importance in development of morals.

What these ideas all have in common is that morals is bred from community and the environment one is raised in. It's not a genetic trait as you tried so hard to claim.

Err, no, not even in the context of religion is that true. In religion, morals aren't based on the belief of the existence of a god, they are based on the doctrine postulated by said God, thus already assuming God exists. If you are somehow confused, we're discussing the existence of God, not what said God thinks or expects from His believers. So yeah, morals are still a non-sequitur to the whole discussion.
Let me make it clearer for you

-> Belief in the christian/jewish God
-> Belief in the 10 commandments
-> thus also direct moral laws created by God
-> believers in said religion have now based their moral behavior on their belief that their God is real.

If god is real and heaven is real, I should do good.

A logical moral standard "doing good" born from an illogical belief/assumption that God is real.

Last edited by MrBIG; 09-21-2013 at 12:15 AM.
MrBIG is offline   Reply With Quote