Atheism is retarded...

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

Again, I see your point, but there is a HUGE difference between the God example, and the teapot example.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you.

Obviously, for almost all atheists this is not at all the case. I, personally, have seen no evidence to suggest that there is this thing you call God and, as such, place both this "God" character and the teapot orbiting Mars in the exact same category as pink unicorns, the abominable snowman, the Loch Ness monster, and big foot.

[fluxrad]

edit: I understand the arguments surrounding abiogenesis and now that I've read about the Miller-Urey aparatus I think I can probably google enough to know what you're talking about, though I won't be able to respond in kind.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, for almost all atheists this is not at all the case. I, personally, have seen no evidence to suggest that there is this thing you call God and, as such, place both this "God" character and the teapot orbiting Mars in the exact same category as pink unicorns, the abominable snowman, the Loch Ness monster, and big foot.

[/ QUOTE ]

A postulate of the theory that there exists a God, is that certain things are scienfically unprovable.

This is not true of the others.

This makes them apples and oranges, IMO.

[CallMeIshmael]

What I meant in my last post was:

If someone believes in Bigfoot, they are not stating a belief that assumes that this belief is scientifically unprovable.

That is, if you believe in bigfoot, it follows that there should be evidence of its existence, as you are believing in the existence of an animal. Thus, you would expect things like dead bodies to come as evidence.

The same type of comment holds true for all of the examples, except belief in God.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Answer: An atheist without any balls.

You can have one of two positions:
1. You have a belief in god.
2. You do NOT have a belief in god.
It is like pregnantcy. You're either pregant or your not.
A theist has a belief in god. An atheist does not have a belief of god. Some atheist go further and say there is no god.

Agnostics try to take the middle road and not offend believers by saying "I don't know whether there is a god or not". It is a weasle tactic to avoid admitting they do not have a belief in god.

Another tactic agnostics use is to define atheisism as saying there is NO god. Since they do not 'know' whether there is a god or not, they claim they can't be atheists.

The best way to nail a agnostic down is ask them if they have a belief in god. Being evasive wimps they will probably keep claiming they don't know what they believe in.

When someone tells me they're an agnostic I immediately stereotype them as a wimp who is more concerned about pleasing others.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a nice close-minded commentary.

Funny. I'm agnostic and it seems to piss militant religious people off. I'm not that way because I don't want to offend anyone. I could care less what they think.

It is not a weasel to say, you have no idea what created all of this, and you don't agree with any religions fairy tales about it.

Many people are skeptical but choose to be religious, 'just in case'. They like to play both the red and the black. How spineless are those types of people when it comes to their beliefs?

b

[exist]

bernie, if someone asks you "what is your position with respect to belief in a god?" you cannot answer that you are agnostic. you either have a positive belief in god or you don't. as it seems that you would not make the statement "i believe a god exists", then you are not a theist. if a person is not a theist, then he is an athiest. most people who describe themselves as agnostic really mean to say they are agnostic atheists.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
bernie, if someone asks you "what is your position with respect to belief in a god?" you cannot answer that you are agnostic. you either have a positive belief in god or you don't. as it seems that you would not make the statement "i believe a god exists", then you are not a theist. if a person is not a theist, then he is an athiest. most people who describe themselves as agnostic really mean to say they are agnostic atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure I can. I can answer, 'I don't know if there is a god.' Pretty simple, really. So far, no one can prove it either way. How does that answer make me an atheist?

Sorry but I don't agree. It's really not that black and white. There is a big defference between believing there is no God at all, and thinking there might be something out there, but who knows. There's a nice gray area.

Just because there is no proof of anything that created this world doesn't mean he doesn't believe anything 'could've' created this.

b

[exist]

you would not make the statement "i believe a god exists." therefore you are not a theist. we both agree up to this point i think.

atheism is primarily a term of privation, it is the lack of a belief. anyone who is not a theist is an atheist, therefore you are an atheist. some atheists choose make a positive claim such as "the concept of god is incoherent" or "given the lack of evidence for a god, the possibility of its existence is miniscule" but this does not mean that it is necessary to make such statements to be an atheist.

the statement "i don't know if there is a god" does not answer the question "what is your position with respect to belief in a god?" notice that someone who responded with your answer could go on to say "i don't know if there is a god but i believe in a god anyway" or "i don't know if there is a god but lacking conclusive evidence, i do not possess a belief in a god."

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
Theism, atheism, and agnosticism are all senseless. To argue for or against any one of them amounts to nothing. Any propositions that arise from such a debate have no empirical value, and are not even real propositions.

[/ QUOTE ]

27 more posts without any content were made since I pointed this out this morning.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theism, atheism, and agnosticism are all senseless. To argue for or against any one of them amounts to nothing. Any propositions that arise from such a debate have no empirical value, and are not even real propositions.

[/ QUOTE ]

27 more posts without any content were made since I pointed this out this morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. You're totally better than all of us.