Quote from Automaton

even a 30% probability is more probable than what strong atheists make out. I guess I'm just looking for some way to strengthen my old position of "a deistic god is very unlikely", but I'm struggling to come up with reasons why that's the case.

That happened to me, that's basically why I'm not an atheist anymore.

I've been posting in the "Is god all powerful" Thread and realized something about myself. I seem to be an apatheist of sorts.
I've realized that there's no way for me to know if god does or does not exist and it has no effect on my morals and life. I don't really care if god does or doesn't either. Though I do enjoy the discussions quite a bit, because when you try understanding peoples beliefs you learn things about that person.

Sounds more like agnosticism than "apatheism", whatever that is.

It's like agnosticism but different.
Like agnostics don't believe and don't not.
I do that, but I also don't really give a fuck.

For example: Some agnostics won't say goddamnit on the chance that god exists.
I say goddamn without any fear because I don't care.

A weak example but it's kinda like that.

I wish Ash were still here, he would make it his goal to re-strengthen my faith in atheism (cwatididthar). I'm sure Zed or someone will make that happen though, but not until I know why a deistic god is specifically improbable.

Quote from Jutsu

It's like agnosticism but different.
Like agnostics don't believe and don't not.

You can't do neither of those, lrn2laws of thought

Quote from Fusion

You can't do neither of those, lrn2laws of thought

No, it's impossible to disbelieve and believe at the same time.
It is possible to not believe and not disbelieve at the same time.

Also, stop hunting down every post I post and disagreeing.
I know you're just trolling/flirting. But it's actually getting a little annoying man.

I'm not hunting down your posts, yours are just the only ones that bother me with the things they're getting wrong in the threads I happen to frequent.
And according to some definitions, disbelieve just means 'not believe'. So not disbelieving is believing, and not believing is disbelieving. You have to do one or the other, they're directly contradictory.

faith in atheism? I don't think you understand what atheism is, especially given that you've separated agnostics and atheists into two different categories completely.

itt

I don't think you understand what a joke is. I put "cwatididthar" in brackets, I assumed people would understand it as an intentional pun, obviously not. Also, in another thread I've stated that I believe agnosticism to be a pointless term if used in the true sense of the word, because nobody knows one way or the other with 100% certainty, and thus everyone is an agnostic by that definition. Finally, I distinguished in my OP between the dictionary definition of agnosticism and the agnosticism I was referring to - specifically, the agnosticism that I'd say 90% of people view it as: thinking a god is just as probable as improbable.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god/deity. You can't have faith in atheism. Technically atheists are agnostics. You could say even if there's a 50/50 chance you're still an atheist, but I think that there's a meaningful distinction between atheism and believing that the odds are 50/50.

[edit]
And 2-D, I don't like anyone that says "you can't know", it pisses me off. I don't think that position refers to agnostics in particular, there're atheists that would say "you can't know, so let's just not debate it", because nobody can KNOW. The agnosticism that I'm referring to isn't answering the question of knowledge, it's answering the question of belief. If you don't want to call that "agnosticism" because you've been told the ONLY definition for it is in relation to knowledge, which is technically true, then don't consider what I'm discussing as agnosticism. Look past the semantics and get to the point of what I'm saying, how we define it is irrelevant.

Quote from Automaton

I don't think you understand what a joke is. I put "cwatididthar" in brackets, I assumed people would understand it as an intentional pun, obviously not. Also, in another thread I've stated that I believe agnosticism to be a pointless term if used in the true sense of the word, because nobody knows one way or the other with 100% certainty, and thus everyone is an agnostic by that definition. Finally, I distinguished in my OP between the dictionary definition of agnosticism and the agnosticism I was referring to - specifically, the agnosticism that I'd say 90% of people view it as: thinking a god is just as probable as improbable.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god/deity. You can't have faith in atheism. Technically atheists are agnostics. You could say even if there's a 50/50 chance you're still an atheist, but I think that there's a meaningful distinction between atheism and believing that the odds are 50/50.

I read as far as "faith in atheism" and starting typing my response. In my defense, you've never post like anything other than a fucking retard so I assumed the rest of it was drivel (cwatididthar???). Did you just google the different definitions for atheism and agnosticism? lmao Atheism and Theism are blanket terms that cover a wide range of different shit. An agnostic is not necessarily different from an atheist, it's unfair to differentiate the two as you do. There are Atheist Agnostics (people who don't believe in god but don't reject the idea that it could exist) and Theist Agnostics (people who believe in god but accept the idea that it might not exist). The problem is you're falling into the social trap laid out by religious people trying to pass atheism and atheists off as a negative thing. There are literal definitions that you should be following, not just "how people view it." Anyone who views Atheism and Agnosticism on the same level and as two separate entities are just plain wrong. It's like differentiating between a Mac and a PC. A Mac is a type of PC; it's a brand name. Similar to how Agnosticism can be a type of Atheism.

Quote from Jeff

I read as far as "faith in atheism" and starting typing my response. In my defense, you've never post like anything other than a fucking retard so I assumed the rest of it was drivel (cwatididthar???).

Hah, wow, what's with the hostility? I'm surprised you see what I've posted previous to this thread as utter drivel, considering my previous beliefs, or lack of them, were strictly atheistic and anti-agnosticism. Before my thought process turned to the way that my OP lays out - which was very, very recently, I might add - I didn't like people who called themselves "agnostics" because that implied that a) they didn't know the definition of agnosticism (it answers a different question than theism/atheism answers), or that b) they are too lazy to even think about it. Also, saying "cwatididthar" is only really useful when you say something ironic etc, not just when you decide to slander someone.

Did you just google the different definitions for atheism and agnosticism?

No. I've been discussing religion and god for a couple of years now, I'd have to be retarded to have not encountered their true definitions at some point along the way. My OP presented to you the term agnosticism in a way which most people understand the term, and I made that distinction. All you had to respond was "hey, you shouldn't really call that belief on a 50/50 probability agnosticism because that's not the term", I would have responded with "well it seemed like the best description providing I clearly laid out my different definition in the OP, however we can choose another name if you wish", and we could have continued from there. However, you then had to present this knowledge as if I didn't know it to be the case. You're essentially inferring things that aren't true - you're inferring that because I'm not using the true definition of agnosticism that means that I don't know the true definition. I do. The reason I'm not using it is because a) I needed a word to describe what I'm thinking and b) the majority of people who don't look into the god debate think of agnosticism as this and also c) that semantics shouldn't really be an issue considering I told everyone at the start what it is I meant.

lmao Atheism and Theism are blanket terms that cover a wide range of different shit. An agnostic is not necessarily different from an atheist, it's unfair to differentiate the two as you do. There are Atheist Agnostics (people who don't believe in god but don't reject the idea that it could exist) and Theist Agnostics (people who believe in god but accept the idea that it might not exist). The problem is you're falling into the social trap laid out by religious people trying to pass atheism and atheists off as a negative thing.

I understand all of this, I understood it long before you came into the thread. Also, falling into the trap of religious people trying to pass atheism as a negative thing? Where is the logical pathway from an incorrect definition of agnosticism to seeing atheism as a negative thing?

There are literal definitions that you should be following, not just "how people view it." Anyone who views Atheism and Agnosticism on the same level and as two separate entities are just plain wrong. It's like differentiating between a Mac and a PC. A Mac is a type of PC; it's a brand name. Similar to how Agnosticism can be a type of Atheism.

I suggest you have a look at this thread I made a while back:
http://forums.stickpage.com/showthread.php?38030-Is-agnosticism-a-useless-term
I still hold to that logic. I don't disagree with what you're saying, in many debates I've argued the same thing (that agnosticism isn't mutually exlusive to atheism OR theism). In fact, I've even described myself as an "agnostic atheist" on my Facebook info page before.

I guess my whole point with this is, get off your high horse and stop thinking that I obviously can't know as much about this debate as you. Shit like this is one of the most annoying things in a debate. It's a fucking straw-man. The debate gets turned into something else, usually semantics, just because someone feels the need to input something negative.

Finally, I barely even mentioned agnosticism. I mentioned it once in the OP because it's the word that described my position closer than any other word, mainly because of the popular misconception on its definition. But hey, if it really bothers you that much that I'm calling it agnosticism even though I've explained why and I laid out my own definition for it in the OP, then feel free to give it another name and I'll use that from now on - hell, maybe there is actually a word that describes what I've been saying that I just haven't discovered yet.

Quote from Automaton

Hah, wow, what's with the hostility? I'm surprised you see what I've posted previous to this thread as utter drivel, considering my previous beliefs, or lack of them, were strictly atheistic and anti-agnosticism. Before my thought process turned to the way that my OP lays out - which was very, very recently, I might add - I didn't like people who called themselves "agnostics" because that implied that a) they didn't know the definition of agnosticism (it answers a different question than theism/atheism answers), or that b) they are too lazy to even think about it. Also, saying "cwatididthar" is only really useful when you say something ironic etc, not just when you decide to slander someone.

I don't think you understand what a joke is. I put "cwatididthar" in brackets, I assumed people would understand it as an intentional pun, obviously not.

Quote from Automaton

No. I've been discussing religion and god for a couple of years now, I'd have to be retarded to have not encountered their true definitions at some point along the way. My OP presented to you the term agnosticism in a way which most people understand the term, and I made that distinction. All you had to respond was "hey, you shouldn't really call that belief on a 50/50 probability agnosticism because that's not the term", I would have responded with "well it seemed like the best description providing I clearly laid out my different definition in the OP, however we can choose another name if you wish", and we could have continued from there. However, you then had to present this knowledge as if I didn't know it to be the case. You're essentially inferring things that aren't true - you're inferring that because I'm not using the true definition of agnosticism that means that I don't know the true definition. I do. The reason I'm not using it is because a) I needed a word to describe what I'm thinking and b) the majority of people who don't look into the god debate think of agnosticism as this and also c) that semantics shouldn't really be an issue considering I told everyone at the start what it is I meant.

I was inferring it because you felt the need to quote the definition at me like you had to prove you knew what it was so you could justify whatever it was you were blithering on about. All YOU had to say was, "yes, I know what I'm talking about." How am I NOT to assume you don't know what it is? I don't fucking follow you around reading whatever you post. If someone says to me, "Yeah I think Heath Ledger was the best batman." I'm gonna tell them they're wrong because I have no reason otherwise to assume that they are purposely misrepresenting facts. Seems like you could have done a much better job at not corrupting your viewpoint for the sake of everyone else.

Quote from Automaton

I understand all of this, I understood it long before you came into the thread. Also, falling into the trap of religious people trying to pass atheism as a negative thing? Where is the logical pathway from an incorrect definition of agnosticism to seeing atheism as a negative thing?

You're perpetuating an incorrect definition by using it for the layman or whatever reason you claimed for starting this topic. By dumbing down the conversation so that retards could understand it on their terms, you're contributing to the propaganda machine where facts are twisted to put a negative connotation on words where there shouldn't be one. Part of this is separating Atheist from Agnostic, giving Atheists their own separate category so that it's clear-cut that Atheists are obviously the heathens and are beyond saving whereas agnostics at least have a chance with the lard. Any time you give support to incorrect ideas, you're contributing to the mass hysteria that surrounds this subject. The BEST thing you can ever do for someone is set them straight, instead of changing your shit to suit them. Education, motherfucker.

Quote from Automaton

I suggest you have a look at this thread I made a while back:
http://forums.stickpage.com/showthread.php?38030-Is-agnosticism-a-useless-term
I still hold to that logic. I don't disagree with what you're saying, in many debates I've argued the same thing (that agnosticism isn't mutually exlusive to atheism OR theism). In fact, I've even described myself as an "agnostic atheist" on my Facebook info page before.

Cool, we've established that you get it.

Quote from Automaton

I guess my whole point with this is, get off your high horse and stop thinking that I obviously can't know as much about this debate as you. Shit like this is one of the most annoying things in a debate. It's a fucking straw-man. The debate gets turned into something else, usually semantics, just because someone feels the need to input something negative.

lmfao that's cute you think that I'm on a high horse while you look down at me and use such phrases as "I understand all of this, I understood it long before you came into the thread." and "I've been discussing religion and god for a couple of years now." From the start you've been acting like you're the authority on the subject matter. I was pointing out that it doesn't seem like you even understand what you were fucking talking about. I wasn't saying I was better than you, I was pointing out the flaw in what you were talking about. NOW who's inferring shit?

Quote from Automaton

Finally, I barely even mentioned agnosticism. I mentioned it once in the OP because it's the word that described my position closer than any other word, mainly because of the popular misconception on its definition. But hey, if it really bothers you that much that I'm calling it agnosticism even though I've explained why and I laid out my own definition for it in the OP, then feel free to give it another name and I'll use that from now on - hell, maybe there is actually a word that describes what I've been saying that I just haven't discovered yet.

You established that this whole fucking topic is centered around the false definition of agnosticism in the first post by saying that you're starting to sympathize with them, which I hardly doubt means anything other than "YEAH THAT VIEW POINT KINDA MAKES SENSE." It does bother me because A) you look uneducated on the subject (sorry, it's true, even if you are educated on it), and B) it's wrong and you should feel bad for it.

Quote from Jeff

I was inferring it because you felt the need to quote the definition at me like you had to prove you knew what it was so you could justify whatever it was you were blithering on about. All YOU had to say was, "yes, I know what I'm talking about." How am I NOT to assume you don't know what it is? I don't fucking follow you around reading whatever you post. If someone says to me, "Yeah I think Heath Ledger was the best batman." I'm gonna tell them they're wrong because I have no reason otherwise to assume that they are purposely misrepresenting facts. Seems like you could have done a much better job at not corrupting your viewpoint for the sake of everyone else.

I'm almost certain if I'd have responded with "I know what I'm talking about", it would have proved that statement less than me actually showing that I agree with your definition of atheism and agnosticism. Also, "how are you not supposed to assume I don't know what it is?" Well for one, I distinguished in my OP between the agnosticism I was using and the true definition. Surely the fact that I included the true definition in my post demonstrates that I knew that previous to your post? Or maybe I'm some sort of sentient being that can go back in time. Also, you can't really analogise facts to definitions. Using a different, popularly believed definition for a word as opposed to the dictionary definition whilst overtly describing that definition isn't the same as saying something is something which it factually isn't. Semantics cannot be equated to things such as that, in the slightest.

You're perpetuating an incorrect definition by using it for the layman or whatever reason you claimed for starting this topic. By dumbing down the conversation so that retards could understand it on their terms, you're contributing to the propaganda machine where facts are twisted to put a negative connotation on words where there shouldn't be one. Part of this is separating Atheist from Agnostic, giving Atheists their own separate category so that it's clear-cut that Atheists are obviously the heathens and are beyond saving whereas agnostics at least have a chance with the lard. Any time you give support to incorrect ideas, you're contributing to the mass hysteria that surrounds this subject. The BEST thing you can ever do for someone is set them straight, instead of changing your shit to suit them. Education, motherfucker.

I reject your claim that I'm simply dumbing it down for the retards, I'm doing it for simplicity. Not simplicity of understanding, simplicity of use. Either way, it's irrelevant, I don't follow your thought pattern at all in believing that the definitions of these terms can be used to make atheism look bad. Nobody that I know has used agnosticism to polarise atheism and make atheists look worse. I can understand the view that I shouldn't change my definition so easily, but a) I didn't change my definition, I used it instead of my definition for the purpose of this thread and b) I don't think it's that big of a deal. Catagorisations don't really matter when what they represent is being clearly lain out in front of you. It's why I refuse to catagorise my sexuality unless pressed, they're restrictive and DON'T MATTER AT ALL. Who cares what the word for admitting not knowing for certain is if you say clearly that you don't know for certain?

Cool, we've established that you get it.

That link wasn't just to establish that, it was to show you why I think agnosticism is a useless term, and in turn also give some justification for why the dictionary definition for it that you love so much doesn't really matter (and furthermore why the one that I was using for the purposes of this thread is acceptable).

lmfao that's cute you think that I'm on a high horse while you look down at me and use such phrases as "I understand all of this, I understood it long before you came into the thread." and "I've been discussing religion and god for a couple of years now." From the start you've been acting like you're the authority on the subject matter. I was pointing out that it doesn't seem like you even understand what you were fucking talking about. I wasn't saying I was better than you, I was pointing out the flaw in what you were talking about. NOW who's inferring shit?

Yeah, you pointed out the flaw. I responded and told you that I knew what I was on about and posted my own views on the definitions (which are the same as yours) to prove it so. You could have just left it there and said something like "OK, but I don't think that you should use the term in that way even if it's only for the purpose of this thread/viewpoint", but you posted a paragraph essentially saying that a) I don't know what I'm on about and b) my previous posts are drivel. Well, considering I explained what I knew to be the truth and then you responded to tell me the same thing that I'd just said, and claimed that I didn't know it to be true, I think I'm entitled to respond as I did.

You established that this whole fucking topic is centered around the false definition of agnosticism in the first post by saying that you're starting to sympathize with them, which I hardly doubt means anything other than "YEAH THAT VIEW POINT KINDA MAKES SENSE." It does bother me because A) you look uneducated on the subject (sorry, it's true, even if you are educated on it), and B) it's wrong and you should feel bad for it.

The topic is based around my view, I used agnosticism as a sort of side-note to make it easily recognisable and for simplicity. The term agnosticism could be taken out of the thread, and it would still make sense. So yes, it's a straw-man in the sense that debating the term agnosticism is not debating anything about the viewpoint that the thread's actually about. Finally, if you'd actually read my OP and the rest of the thread, I don't see how you could deduce that my sympathising with the "agnostic" - I've yet to see a better term - view equates to "YEAH THAT VIEW POINT KINDA MAKES SENSE". That does not equate to my OP which states clearly my reasoning for coming to the conclusion.

Now, I haven't liked automaton very much in the past, I'll admit.

But jeff is being a douchebag and I can't tell why. Maybe he feels very strongly about this subject but either way I feel like he's behaving inappropriately. Half of his posting seems to be ad hominem. I think it'd really help his case in this debate if he just wouldn't be so blatantly rude about expressing his side.