Intelligent and religious?

Offline

Dec 2012

778

Holybaptiser said:

SkyKyz said:

-Miyu- said:

TookMe6Years said:
I thought they just don't have to equipment for it. Hmmm...... Different enhancement of an equipment allows you see different things. (Referencing the Telescope)

For example: Earth was thought to be the center of the Universe. Although later it was disproved; the Sun ended up as the center. However the concept of the modeling the Universe is still there.

I believe you are talking about the galaxy, not the universe.

No he's right for a long period of time people thought earth was the center of the universe

http://science.discovery.com/top-ten/2009/science-mistakes/science-mistakes-02.html

Well, that wasn't really a scientific theory. That was the word of the Vatican, the greatest and most successful organized crime syndicate in all of history. Galileo was imprisoned for years for going against it. People were persecuted left, right and center for going against the word of the Vatican, and those aethiesm was blasphemy treated by capital punishment.

Haha. I think the same about the Vatican.

Holybaptiser said:

Second of all, I know what a scientific theory is. Thank you for the redundant link to wikipedia. Let me ask you a question. How many times in the past have scientific theories that were highly appraised and thought to be correct been scientifically disproven?

I have already said that to katsucats. He said to stop trying to use science to disprove itself. However only science can disprove itself. What else would disprove it? Religion? Very contradictory of his part.

Jan 6, 2013 3:54 PM

#202

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Holybaptiser said:

katsucats said:

Holybaptiser said:
I am not an astrophysicist, so I don't understand the depth of the Big Bang Theory, nor am I willing to accept it, because after all, it is only a theory. Theory is not law, it is a concept, just like the concept of God.

No. You don't understand what a scientific theory is: "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

God, on the other hand, is not well-substantiated, and is not based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through experiment.

Holybaptiser said:
As far as saying, religious people are stupid... No, you're stupid, fellow aethiest. Look at Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. They were both religious. One an unorthodox Christian who was heavily in to the occult, and the other a Jew. You're simply showing how ignorant you are by grouping people who don't believe in what you believe in as one thing. You are no better than a zealot.

Albert Einstein was an agnostic atheist. He was raised by secular Jewish parents. He is Jewish only by lineage and culture, not religion.

First things first. Okay. Alfred Einstein was an agnostic aethiest. My bad. How about the father of calculus and inertia? Was he stupid?

Second of all, I know what a scientific theory is. Thank you for the redundant link to wikipedia. Let me ask you a question. How many times in the past have scientific theories that were highly appraised and thought to be correct been scientifically disproven?

You obviously do not understand what a scientific theory is if you think it is "just a concept". Since science is partially descriptive, it is constantly revise when new evidence appears. Scientific theories are posteriori knowledge -- they are known after the fact. The concept of god is a priori, you conceptualize it without any evidence and assume it exists.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 3:56 PM

#203

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Not_Biased said:

katsucats said:

Not_Biased said:

katsucats said:

Not_Biased said:
Teenagers don't have enough life experience to assume/know anything, they saying that they are agnostic is plausible, atheist, no.

Agnostics are atheists unless one is in the habit of believing things of which he has no knowledge of.

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)

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.

b and 2 are incorrect.

(A)gnostic answers knowledge of God, and (A)theism answers believe/existence of God. They are not mutually exclusive. This is the concept it was used to describe when Thomas Henry Huxley coined the term.

b and 2 are correct. We were solely talking about the "agnostic" term. You bringing 4 new sub-terms does not make it less correct.

Agnostic means "without knowledge", it is not mutually exclusive to atheist, which means "without belief".

Teenagers that are agnostic are either atheist or theist. If they don't hold a belief about a god, then they are atheist by default.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 3:56 PM

#204

Offline

Dec 2012

778

TookMe6Years said:
@Not_Biased Can't be an arsed to take your post considerately. You constantly pull the majority card. Some, most, them, they; Nobody cares. It doesn't matter whether they are rude, and or even an asshole. It doesn't make your post any more credibility. I think its a poor move to even attempt to use bad examples to support your useless claim. The so called I want to debate intelligent and respectful. Your basically asking for an appeal audience only. Tough luck, kiddo.

Never once yet, I seen a legit post from you other than making a fuss over the definition of agnostic.

It's because it will take you 6 years to understand and evaluate what has been said here

Jan 6, 2013 3:58 PM

#205

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Not_Biased said:
I have already said that to katsucats. He said to stop trying to use science to disprove itself. However only science can disprove itself. What else would disprove it? Religion? Very contradictory of his part.

Congratulations, you've succeeded in taking what I said out of context, you who cite Evolution-denialist sources and present them as an authority of scientific evidence.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:01 PM

#206

MellowJello

Offline

Aug 2012

16888

People are seriously debating with Not_Biased? *sigh*

I feel like I've already said something productive previously on this topic, so I'm out of words.

Jan 6, 2013 4:04 PM

#207

Red_Keys

Offline

Sep 2012

19236

Religious faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive traits.

Jan 6, 2013 4:06 PM

#208

Holybaptiser

Offline

Jun 2012

6488

@katsucats - You escape answering questions and arguments that you can't counter argue proficiently by making claims. Very unscientific. What you just did was basically say, "No, you don't get it all! Bleerghhh ughhhh guuh (this is the sound of you regurgitating something you've already said and that wikipedia link)." As previously stated, I know exactly what a scientific theory is. They are not, in anyway, set in stone.

Seems like you didn't even understand my initial point. I'm saying that blindly following something you cannot fathom, is the same as believing in religion.

I don't believe in god. I believe in science. I believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, because it has more evidence (carbon dating) implying so, which is more evidence than the universe was started through a gas cloud that fell under its own gravity and exploded to create everything in existence, which is heavily supported by creation of stars and the movement of galaxies in the universe.

I'm also filled with pure-hearted ulterior motives.

Jan 6, 2013 4:06 PM

#209

BloodRequiem

Offline

Apr 2012

3643

Red_Keys said:
Religious faith and intelligence are not mutually exclusive traits.

I agree. However, people in this thread seem to show evidence to the contrary.

As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all.

Jan 6, 2013 4:09 PM

#210

Hapax

Offline

Jun 2012

432

Just a stupid question because I'm bored, how do you call a child who still ignore the concept of god, can he still be considerate as agnostic? If yes, I he's guess atheist by default... (don't know, so can't believe)

I sometime have funky grammar, sorry about that. If you can correct some of my post, you would be an angel.

Jan 6, 2013 4:11 PM

#211

Candor123

Offline

Oct 2011

5593

Not_Biased said:

Candor said:

Not_Biased said:

You live in Germany, Germany is a peaceful country now period. Of course they live their lives normally. I am talking about the middle east.

You mean the Islam they're taught in the middle east is different from the Islam they're taught in Germany? What if I told you that guy I live with lives here since 2 years and he was taught Islam in the middle-east and he still hasn't killed anybody, well, yet? Oh yea, Germany is still peaceful. Through that interpretation you see that the problem is not in the religion, but where is it then? I wonder whose army is in Afghanistan atm. Al-Assad's? Oh wait, Al-Assad is in Syria, my bad. Figure it out for yourself.

The problem isn't in the religion, the problem is in the environment. Ever wondered what it's like to live in a country where you can't find something to eat? where you don't know when you're going to die? Would you remain calm and try to look for a job when you know it's a hopeless case? How would you live? Or ever wondered what it's like to live in a country with war in it? What would you do? Stay calm and in your house while waiting to be killed? Still not wanting to hold a gun and fight? You won't understand because you've never been there.

The region there is underdeveloped, it's still in ignorance. People are hardly living and what makes it worse are the governments who control the people either using the religion, or a dictatorship where someone can't voice his opinions. Not to mention the west with their interventions; puppets, military interventions, or movies like the Muhammad ones they make to show how underdeveloped the 3rd world is and to keep them in their ignorance. Why not help them develop their countries by showing some good intents, like banning the Muhammad video for example? Why spread the hate for Muslims and not help them to get out of their ignorance? Oh wait, it's politics.

You and Holybaptiser hit the jackpot now, so congratulations. The Islam they're taught in the middle east isn't different, but the people and the environment is different indeed. That's what I've been saying, that's what is wrong with the middle east. They're severely underdeveloped.

Muslims need to be helped, sure, however, making terrorist attacks like 9/11 will only make things worse.

Then stop blaming the religion when an individual is the reason. There are also some Christians who are bad in the middle east too, does that make all Christians bad? if not then stop the nonsense you're saying.

Btw, good job ignoring half of the questions I asked, though it's nothing new, you always ignored questions you don't like.

Jan 6, 2013 4:12 PM

#212

Holybaptiser

Offline

Jun 2012

6488

Hapax said:
Just a stupid question because I'm bored, how do you call a child who still ignore the concept of god, can he still be considerate as agnostic? If yes, I he's guess atheist by default... (don't know, so can't believe)

You could call him a philosopher if he starts questioning existentialism. If he has no idea what god is, you can't call him anything.

I'm also filled with pure-hearted ulterior motives.

Jan 6, 2013 4:14 PM

#213

Candor123

Offline

Oct 2011

5593

MellowJello said:
People are seriously debating with Not_Biased? *sigh*

I feel like I've already said something productive previously on this topic, so I'm out of words.

It's really fun you know.

Jan 6, 2013 4:15 PM

#214

Offline

Dec 2012

778

Hapax said:
Just a stupid question because I'm bored, how do you call a child who still ignore the concept of god, can he still be considerate as agnostic? If yes, I he's guess atheist by default... (don't know, so can't believe)

Uhh you don't call him anything

Jan 6, 2013 4:17 PM

#215

Offline

Jan 2013

978

Bait is a success. It's only a matter of time before you pull that move. I am glad you choose, now to destroy your credibility.

Not_Biased you are a person constantly complains about not having an intellectual discussion. You stated that majority of atheist you met are rude, and you constantly spiting that religious theist are the better of the two.

You used nothing but majority red-herring and straw-man. Try to make an overblown proportion statement on atheist and religious people.

One of your red-herring is that: " I like debating religion and philosophy with intelligent and respectful atheists. The arrogant, obnoxious and rude ones are making the rest of them look bad."

Arrogant, obnoxious characteristic has nothing to do with debating atheist.

You used straw-man to convey a message: "The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey."

That is a distortion statement. Atheist are people who are skeptic of the belief of higher existence and super-power. There is no such thing as atheists are people who are out to get theist. Stop spreading false info.

TookMe6YearsJan 6, 2013 4:42 PM

Jan 6, 2013 4:18 PM

#216

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Holybaptiser said:
@katsucats - You escape answering questions and arguments that you can't counter argue proficiently by making claims. Very unscientific. What you just did was basically say, "No, you don't get it all! Bleerghhh ughhhh guuh (this is the sound of you regurgitating something you've already said and that wikipedia link)." As previously stated, I know exactly what a scientific theory is. They are not, in anyway, set in stone.

The only way to answer questions is to make a claim. What does science have to do with the art of argument? I contrasted the difference between a scientific theory and a common "theory" of God: one is arrived to posteriori after evidence is found, the other is arrive to a priori and assumed to be true (none of this, by the way, is copied from that Wikipedia article; unlike you, my knowledge is innate). The fact that you compared the two proves that you don't know the difference -- and your objections just make you out to be in denial.

Scientific theories are not set in stone, but they are supported by loads of evidence. Science is based in these so-called theories: such as Newton's Theory of Gravitation, the Theory of Relativity, the Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Theory of Evolution. Each of these are the foundations in which science are built on. A scientific law is a deduction or expression of a theory in mathematical terms. In science, laws are based in theories.

Holybaptiser said:
Seems like you didn't even understand my initial point. I'm saying that blindly following something you cannot fathom, is the same as believing in religion.

That's quite an odd assumption that people cannot fathom scientific principles when they are publicly available at your local library.

Holybaptiser said:
I don't believe in god. I believe in science. I believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, because it has more evidence (carbon dating) implying so, which is more evidence than the universe was started through a gas cloud that fell under its own gravity and exploded to create everything in existence, which is heavily supported by creation of stars and the movement of galaxies in the universe.

I guess it is a religion for you then, since you believe in science without understanding what a scientific theory is.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:19 PM

#217

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Hapax said:
Just a stupid question because I'm bored, how do you call a child who still ignore the concept of god, can he still be considerate as agnostic? If yes, I he's guess atheist by default... (don't know, so can't believe)

Atheism is "without belief". Anyone who lacks belief (e.g. a child) is atheist by default.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:24 PM

#218

Offline

Oct 2012

7837

katsucats said:

Hapax said:
Just a stupid question because I'm bored, how do you call a child who still ignore the concept of god, can he still be considerate as agnostic? If yes, I he's guess atheist by default... (don't know, so can't believe)

Atheism is "without belief". Anyone who lacks belief (e.g. a child) is atheist by default.

So automatically, any baby just born, or even still in the womb, can already be labeled?
I think you have to reject the notion of a belief by acknowledging it, in this case a baby would have to physically say, "I don't believe in god" before saying someone is atheist.

Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is.

Jan 6, 2013 4:25 PM

#219

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Tavor said:

katsucats said:

Hapax said:
Just a stupid question because I'm bored, how do you call a child who still ignore the concept of god, can he still be considerate as agnostic? If yes, I he's guess atheist by default... (don't know, so can't believe)

Atheism is "without belief". Anyone who lacks belief (e.g. a child) is atheist by default.

So automatically, any baby just born, or even still in the womb, can already be labeled?

Sure, unless it was conceived in missionary.

Tavor said:
I think you have to reject the notion of a belief by acknowledging it, in this case a baby would have to physically say, "I don't believe in god" before saying someone is atheist.

An atheist doesn't necessarily reject God; he lacks belief in God.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:28 PM

#220

Offline

Jan 2012

367

Tavor said:

So automatically, any baby just born, or even still in the womb, can already be labeled?
I think you have to reject the notion of a belief by acknowledging it, in this case a baby would have to physically say, "I don't believe in god" before saying someone is atheist.

Atheism is the default position.

Jan 6, 2013 4:31 PM

#221

Offline

Dec 2012

778

katsucats you are incredibly wrong

you are either narrowminded or confused

babies don't have the cognitive capacity to develop a theory on god, Newborns do not have opinions on theist propositions and atheism, so you don't call them anything

Jan 6, 2013 4:34 PM

#222

Offline

Oct 2012

7837

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So automatically, any baby just born, or even still in the womb, can already be labeled?
I think you have to reject the notion of a belief by acknowledging it, in this case a baby would have to physically say, "I don't believe in god" before saying someone is atheist.

Atheism is the default position.

I wouldn't say it's the default position.
Unless that baby has clear understanding of the words, "believe" "god" "religion", I don't think it's fair to say that baby is an atheist.
Also my answer in regard to katsucats.

Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is.

Jan 6, 2013 4:34 PM

#223

Offline

Jan 2012

367

Not_Biased said:
katsucats you are incredibly wrong

you are either narrowminded or confused

babies don't have the cognitive capacity to develop a theory on god, Newborns do not have opinions on theist propositions and atheism, so you don't call them anything

All babies are atheist just like they are a aunicornist.

You either subscribe to a magazine or you do not. Babies are born not subscribing to anything precisely because they are babies. It takes a plethora of social influences to bring them to subscribe to such notions.

Jan 6, 2013 4:35 PM

#224

bottle

Offline

Dec 2009

1591

Atheism = denial of existence.
Agnostic = determined that it cannot be proved due to various limitations, so it's possible both sides.

Those who have not thought about it = don't care or no need to be labeled.

Jan 6, 2013 4:35 PM

#225

Offline

Jan 2013

978

Well no shit sherlock hurr durr. Never once was there implication about an infant having a capacity of stating a complete sentence.

Jan 6, 2013 4:35 PM

#226

Hapax

Offline

Jun 2012

432

Never thought this thing would products more than 1 post. Amazing

I sometime have funky grammar, sorry about that. If you can correct some of my post, you would be an angel.

Jan 6, 2013 4:35 PM

#227

Offline

Oct 2012

7837

Citizeninsane said:

Not_Biased said:
katsucats you are incredibly wrong

you are either narrowminded or confused

babies don't have the cognitive capacity to develop a theory on god, Newborns do not have opinions on theist propositions and atheism, so you don't call them anything

All babies are atheist just like they are a aunicornist.

You either subscribe to a magazine or you do not. Babies are born not subscribing to anything precisely because they are babies. It takes a plethora of social influences to bring them to subscribe to such notions.

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is.

Jan 6, 2013 4:37 PM

#228

Offline

Jan 2012

367

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

Jan 6, 2013 4:39 PM

#229

Offline

Oct 2012

7837

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

It also takes a society to bring you to believe there is no god too.
So until you can make the conscience decision to be either religious or atheist, I don't think a baby could process that information.

Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is.

Jan 6, 2013 4:39 PM

#230

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Not_Biased said:

babies don't have the cognitive capacity to develop a theory on god, Newborns do not have opinions on theist propositions and atheism

...Therefore, they lack a belief in God.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:40 PM

#231

Offline

Jan 2013

978

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

Don't forget they are socially amoral.

Jan 6, 2013 4:40 PM

#232

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Tavor said:

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

It also takes a society to bring you to believe there is no god too.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god.

Yes, there is a semantic difference.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:42 PM

#233

Offline

Jan 2012

367

Tavor said:

It also takes a society to bring you to believe there is no god too.
So until you can make the conscience decision to be either religious or atheist, I don't think a baby could process that information.

No god LOL! Blatant straw man? Atheism is NOT denial of god's existence. Atheism is not an epistemological claim it is an absence of belief. It takes an additive epistemological claim, and then I would agree that babies are NOT gnostic atheists.

CitizeninsaneJan 6, 2013 4:52 PM

Jan 6, 2013 4:43 PM

#234

Offline

Dec 2012

778

katsucats said:

Tavor said:

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

It also takes a society to bring you to believe there is no god too.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god.

Yes, there is a semantic difference.

a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

you're gonna say this site is wrong too?

Jan 6, 2013 4:44 PM

#235

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Not_Biased said:

katsucats said:

Tavor said:

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

It also takes a society to bring you to believe there is no god too.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god.

Yes, there is a semantic difference.

a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

you're gonna say this site is wrong too?

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:44 PM

#236

Holybaptiser

Offline

Jun 2012

6488

katsucats said:

Holybaptiser said:
@katsucats - You escape answering questions and arguments that you can't counter argue proficiently by making claims. Very unscientific. What you just did was basically say, "No, you don't get it all! Bleerghhh ughhhh guuh (this is the sound of you regurgitating something you've already said and that wikipedia link)." As previously stated, I know exactly what a scientific theory is. They are not, in anyway, set in stone.

The only way to answer questions is to make a claim. What does science have to do with the art of argument? I contrasted the difference between a scientific theory and a common "theory" of God: one is arrived to posteriori after evidence is found, the other is arrive to a priori and assumed to be true (none of this, by the way, is copied from that Wikipedia article; unlike you, my knowledge is innate). The fact that you compared the two proves that you don't know the difference -- and your objections just make you out to be in denial.

Scientific theories are not set in stone, but they are supported by loads of evidence. Science is based in these so-called theories: such as Newton's Theory of Gravitation, the Theory of Relativity, the Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Theory of Evolution. Each of these are the foundations in which science are built on. A scientific law is a deduction or expression of a theory in mathematical terms. In science, laws are based in theories.

Holybaptiser said:
Seems like you didn't even understand my initial point. I'm saying that blindly following something you cannot fathom, is the same as believing in religion.

That's quite an odd assumption that people cannot fathom scientific principles when they are publicly available at your local library.

Holybaptiser said:
I don't believe in god. I believe in science. I believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, because it has more evidence (carbon dating) implying so, which is more evidence than the universe was started through a gas cloud that fell under its own gravity and exploded to create everything in existence, which is heavily supported by creation of stars and the movement of galaxies in the universe.

I guess it is a religion for you then, since you believe in science without understanding what a scientific theory is.

Proved the very first sentence I wrote. Everything came back to scientific theory. :/ this is a waste time. You're just as stupid the zealous religious people (you can't accept something that isn't the same as your opinion.)
What you can't seem to acknowledge that science changes over time, and what might accepted as the explaining theory may not be accepted in the future. I'd rather leave out the uncertainties.

Go ahead and tell me I don't know what a scientific theory is.

HolybaptiserJan 6, 2013 4:54 PM

I'm also filled with pure-hearted ulterior motives.

Jan 6, 2013 4:45 PM

#237

Mkay

Offline

May 2012

10357

Citizeninsane said:

No god LOL! Blatant straw man? Atheism is NOT denial of god's existence. Atheism is not an epistemological claim it is an absence of belief. It takes additive epistemological claim, and then I would agree that babies are NOT gnostic atheists.

a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun
The theory or belief that God does not exist.

A baby cannot have a theory or mind, or a belief.

Jan 6, 2013 4:45 PM

#238

Offline

Oct 2012

7837

katsucats said:

Tavor said:

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

It also takes a society to bring you to believe there is no god too.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god.

Yes, there is a semantic difference.

I suppose the problem at hand is conflicting definitions.
Oxford dictionary: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Dictionary.com: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Just this once, I'll fulfill whatever your wish is.

Jan 6, 2013 4:46 PM

#239

Offline

Jan 2012

367

Mkayyy said:

Citizeninsane said:

No god LOL! Blatant straw man? Atheism is NOT denial of god's existence. Atheism is not an epistemological claim it is an absence of belief. It takes additive epistemological claim, and then I would agree that babies are NOT gnostic atheists.

a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
Noun
The theory or belief that God does not exist.

A baby cannot have a theory or mind, or a belief.

Thanks for proving my point. Therefore in the correct context, a baby is an atheist.

Jan 6, 2013 4:47 PM

#240

BloodRequiem

Offline

Apr 2012

3643

Wanking dictionary definitions does nothing. Nor does it make good arguments. Now I will go back to spectating.

As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all.

Jan 6, 2013 4:47 PM

#241

Offline

Dec 2012

778

babies are incapable of deciding whether or not they believe in a higher power. An atheist is an atheist because he/she has chosen to be an atheist. A baby cannot choose either way because they don't know.

it's common sense, I don't believe you guys are now trying to force your beliefs on babies that don't know anything, sorry katsucats but you just lost credibility.

Jan 6, 2013 4:49 PM

#242

Offline

Jan 2013

978

katsucats said:

Not_Biased said:

katsucats said:

Tavor said:

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

It also takes a society to bring you to believe there is no god too.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god.

Yes, there is a semantic difference.

a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

you're gonna say this site is wrong too?

Uh dude? You do realize when he stated "Atheism is not the belief that there is no god." It's a double negative sentence.

Not belief and no god. Therefore it means Atheist is a belief of god which is incorrect.

That is why he stated the lack of belief of a god.

So your argument is invalid.

Jan 6, 2013 4:49 PM

#243

Hapax

Offline

Jun 2012

432

TookMe6Years said:

Don't forget they are socially amoral.

All baby are so arrogant.

I sometime have funky grammar, sorry about that. If you can correct some of my post, you would be an angel.

Jan 6, 2013 4:49 PM

#244

Red_Keys

Offline

Sep 2012

19236

BloodRequiem said:
Wanking dictionary definitions does nothing. Nor does it make good arguments. Now I will go back to spectating.

When trying to define a word, yes it does.

And

Tavor said:

Oxford dictionary: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

BAM. Both definitions are right. Who would have thought.

Jan 6, 2013 4:50 PM

#245

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Holybaptiser said:

katsucats said:

Holybaptiser said:
@katsucats - You escape answering questions and arguments that you can't counter argue proficiently by making claims. Very unscientific. What you just did was basically say, "No, you don't get it all! Bleerghhh ughhhh guuh (this is the sound of you regurgitating something you've already said and that wikipedia link)." As previously stated, I know exactly what a scientific theory is. They are not, in anyway, set in stone.

The only way to answer questions is to make a claim. What does science have to do with the art of argument? I contrasted the difference between a scientific theory and a common "theory" of God: one is arrived to posteriori after evidence is found, the other is arrive to a priori and assumed to be true (none of this, by the way, is copied from that Wikipedia article; unlike you, my knowledge is innate). The fact that you compared the two proves that you don't know the difference -- and your objections just make you out to be in denial.

Scientific theories are not set in stone, but they are supported by loads of evidence. Science is based in these so-called theories: such as Newton's Theory of Gravitation, the Theory of Relativity, the Atomic Theory, Cell Theory, Theory of Evolution. Each of these are the foundations in which science are built on. A scientific law is a deduction or expression of a theory in mathematical terms. In science, laws are based in theories.

Holybaptiser said:
Seems like you didn't even understand my initial point. I'm saying that blindly following something you cannot fathom, is the same as believing in religion.

That's quite an odd assumption that people cannot fathom scientific principles when they are publicly available at your local library.

Holybaptiser said:
I don't believe in god. I believe in science. I believe that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, because it has more evidence (carbon dating) implying so, which is more evidence than the universe was started through a gas cloud that fell under its own gravity and exploded to create everything in existence, which is heavily supported by creation of stars and the movement of galaxies in the universe.

I guess it is a religion for you then, since you believe in science without understanding what a scientific theory is.

Proved the very first sentence I wrote. Everything came back to scientific theory. :/ this is a waste time. You're just as stupid the zealous religious people.

Ad hominem. I showed you the difference between a scientific theory and a common theory but you'd rather dig your head into the sand and pretend it didn't happen. You can't claim to believe in a claim and then in the next sentence contradict a core principle.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:54 PM

#246

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

TookMe6Years said:

katsucats said:

Not_Biased said:

katsucats said:

Tavor said:

Citizeninsane said:

Tavor said:

So how do they subscribe to being an atheist?

Atheism isn't a subscription. It is the lack of belief in a god, it takes society to bring you believe that there is a god.

Take feral children. Do they believe in god? No. They work solely on animal instinct.

It also takes a society to bring you to believe there is no god too.

Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a god.

Yes, there is a semantic difference.

a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

you're gonna say this site is wrong too?

Uh dude? You do realize when he stated "Atheism is not the belief that there is no god." It's a double negative sentence.

Not belief and no god. Therefore it means Atheist is a belief of god which is incorrect.

That is why he stated the lack of belief of a god.

So your argument is invalid.

Let's break this down step by step okay?

Atheism is not the belief that there is no God.

Q: What is atheism not?
A: The belief that there is no God.

Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a God.

Q: What is atheism?
A: The lack of belief that there is a God.

Lesson Recap
Atheism -- The belief that there is no God <---WRONG
Atheism -- The lack of belief that there is a God <---RIGHT DING!DING!DING!

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 4:56 PM

#247

Offline

Dec 2012

778

Not_Biased said:

a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

you're gonna say this site is wrong too?

katsucats said:

Atheism -- The belief that there is no God <---WRONG

he did it hahaha

for the record, it's the third time that you go against the word of reputable sites

you think your word is above all

Not_BiasedJan 6, 2013 5:02 PM

Jan 6, 2013 4:57 PM

#248

Offline

Jan 2013

978

Do I get a prize?

Jan 6, 2013 5:02 PM

#249

Offline

Oct 2012

16085

Not_Biased said:
babies are incapable of deciding whether or not they believe in a higher power. An atheist is an atheist because he/she has chosen to be an atheist. A baby cannot choose either way because they don't know.

An atheist is someone who lacks belief in God. Atheism is not a claim.

Not_Biased said:
it's common sense, I don't believe you guys are now trying to force your beliefs on babies that don't know anything, sorry katsucats but you just lost credibility.

It is common sense that lacking a belief is the default position. I don't know how any person can think otherwise.

My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com
THE CHAT CLUB.

Jan 6, 2013 5:03 PM

#250