Atheism IS a Religion
in Religion

THEDENIER · October 2017

@Evidence on the topic of parents and aparents. Sure, both of them are crazy, but they are legitimate words with legitimate meanings. Many of you don't understand the scientific meaning of "theory"@Vaulk Vaulk http://notjustatheory.com/ I suggest you check out this link for clarification. @missmedic ;It is impossible to prove that falafels are not actually alien messages to us. That does not mean that it requires any true faith to disbelieve that. I will never disprove god, neither will you or anyone else, but that is not evidence for his existence. Atheism does not require faith, religion does. Morals are not supernatural, in fact, they are explained by science. Our brains have evolved so that we care for each other for the good of the species. The big bang is essentially proven fact at this point, belief in it requires logic, not faith. The underpinnings of science is a lack of faith. It saddens me that so many of you believe that science is about arbitrary assertions that are believed because they "sound plausible" not because of evidence.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

@THEDENIER let me guess, because we detected radiation what 93 billion light years away?

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

@Coveny

My favorite troll is back!

edit: You forgot when I put a smile on your face when I said Atheism isn't a religion, except for the belief that gravity solves everything? Also I think you're most likely trolling because you respond with a basic cliche answer to everything and when this is called out or you run out of basic cliche answers you turn to abusive and contextomy fallacies, or flagging our posts as spam/fallacy

Logic · October 2017

I'd say it is.

Coveny · October 2017

@SilverishGoldNova I answer EVERYTHING with a basic cliche? Well then it should be easy for you to provide 10 instances of me doing that which you accused me of right? I'll wait.

As far as me turning to abuse, and fallacies you have NEVER provide an answer to the ONE argument presented you on the line of time zones in a flat earth, and have instead resorted to name calling, ridicule, and you even go so far as to follow me to other debates and start calling me names. Actions speak MUCH louder than words...

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

@Coveny Because it's always "You never addressed my points", you claiming we never addressed yours despite it being addressed a million times which or insults and I guess you don't disagree you are quick to turn to fallacies, because instead you would rather ramble about time zones. interesting how we can start debate via me remarking my favorite t roll has returned. If you're not trolling then I don't know what to tell you. Also, don't lecture me on ridicule when you flooded both flat Earth threads with insults and then tried to blame me for it.

And despite the fingerprints on the knife being his, and the murderer carrying the list of motives, he still pleads innocent and claims baselessly it was silver, and calls the judge biased.

Erfisflat · October 2017

@THEDENIER said "The big bang is essentially proven fact at this point, "

People are so gullible nowadays

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

@CYDdharta I agree with your dictionary definition and you say let's stick with dictionary definitions? ROFL Here are some definitions of gnostic for you because you couldn't understand the articles:
Dictionary - pertaining to knowledge.
Free Dictionary - Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.
Collins - of knowledge
Cambridge - relating to knowledge, especially knowledge that most people do not have:

Gnostic means you know, it comes from Greek where they use an "a" in front of words to mean "not". So gnostic means you "know", and and agnostic means you don't "know". It refers to certainty or surety as I keep saying and proving. The following statement makes complete sense and isn't a contradiction in any way: I don't believe god exists but I don't believe it's possible to know for sure that god doesn't exist. It's not difficult to understand if you can get past your confirmation bias. Agnostic means one thing, and gnostic means something COMPLETELY different in your fantasy. (rather than them being antonyms like asymmetrical, atypical, etc) But hey why let logic or the meaning of words stop your fantasy?

That's the adjective. As a nouns as we're using here, not so much;

noun
4.
(initial capital letter) a member of any of certain sects among the early Christians who claimed to have superior knowledge of spiritual matters, and explained the world as created by powers or agencies arising as emanations from the Godhead.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/gnostic

n. A believer in Gnosticism.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Gnostic

noun
3. [usually G-]
an adherent of Gnosticism

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/gnostic

...and you even had to butcher the adjective form of the word from Collins;

adjective
1. of knowledge; specif., of gnosis

2. [usually G-]
of Gnostics or Gnosticism

Even as an adjective, it doesn't mean what you say it means. A thing cannot be both itself and not itself, but that isn't the case with gnostic and agnostic. One can easily be a gnostic agnostic, that is, to have knowledge yet not be committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. one can even be an agnostic gnostic, that is, someone not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god, yet having knowledge of gnosis.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

a post

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

@THEDENIER let me guess, because we detected radiation what 93 billion light years away?

Erfisflat · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@THEDENIER let me guess, because we detected radiation what 93 billion light years away?

They'll believe anything as long as you put "scientists say" in front of it.

Vaulk · October 2017

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@THEDENIER let me guess, because we detected radiation what 93 billion light years away?

They'll believe anything as long as you put "scientists say" in front of it.

Isn't THAT the truth. Hell we thought for over 70 years that the Piltdown Man was the Missing link. Turns out it was a hoax but never-the-less we still teach evolution as if it's a rock solid fact instead of a theory. And it's not even a Scientific theory. What do you call an alleged scientific theory that cannot be observed, measured or tested? Well you have to remove the word "Scientific" but you can still keep the Noun "Theory".

Erfisflat · October 2017

Vaulk said:

@Erfisflat

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@THEDENIER let me guess, because we detected radiation what 93 billion light years away?

They'll believe anything as long as you put "scientists say" in front of it.

Isn't THAT the truth. Hell we thought for over 70 years that the Piltdown Man was the Missing link. Turns out it was a hoax but never-the-less we still teach evolution as if it's a rock solid fact instead of a theory. And it's not even a Scientific theory. What do you call an alleged scientific theory that cannot be observed, measured or tested? Well you have to remove the word "Scientific" but you can still keep the Noun "Theory".

I would even go so far as to say they have FAITH in the words of men. Black holes, "space fabric", big bangism, and yes, even heliocentrism are all pseudoscientific claims with zero practical evidence.

Vaulk · October 2017

It would seem that the supreme qualifying criteria for acceptance of these ideas is simply the exclusion of the supreme being ideology.

"So long as God isn't involved then you've got my support".

Erfisflat · October 2017

Vaulk said:

It would seem that the supreme qualifying criteria for acceptance of these ideas is simply the exclusion of the supreme being ideology.

"So long as God isn't involved then you've got my support".

The nonexistence of God is a required presupposition if you want to be a "credible" scientist today.

Vaulk · October 2017

@Erfisflat ,

I'd be completely satisfied if Scientists and Creationists all came together and took turns saying "Look we don't know, there's evidence on both sides but nothing can really be proven beyond reasonable doubt and nothing can really be disproved at this point either". Scientists should agree to continue working to discover and Creationists should continue discovering evidence on their side and respect each others' field of study.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@THEDENIER let me guess, because we detected radiation what 93 billion light years away?

They'll believe anything as long as you put "scientists say" in front of it.

But scientists say we now live on a shiitake mushroom made out of McDonald's fries

Erfisflat · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

@THEDENIER let me guess, because we detected radiation what 93 billion light years away?

They'll believe anything as long as you put "scientists say" in front of it.

But scientists say we now live on a shiitake mushroom made out of McDonald's fries

Too round

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:
Even as an adjective, it doesn't mean what you say it means. A thing cannot be both itself and not itself, but that isn't the case with gnostic and agnostic. One can easily be a gnostic agnostic, that is, to have knowledge yet not be committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. one can even be an agnostic gnostic, that is, someone not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god, yet having knowledge of gnosis.

Really? I guess I have a do english lessons here as well. Defining Adjective:
Dictionary - any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns
Free Dictionary - The part of speech that modifies a noun
Collins - any of a class of words used to modify a noun
Cambridge - a word that describes a noun or pronoun:

So when I say than "I am gnostic" the noun is me and the adjective that describes me (the noun) is gnostic.

Gnostic comes from the greek word gnosis which means knowledge. So gnostic means to have knowledge and agnostic mean to not have knowledge. We have shortened knowledge down to "know" in modern language but the mean is still knowledge. When you say "I know what I'm talking about" it directly equates to "I have knowledge of what I'm talking about". These are statements of surety or certainty from a person. They are statement which don't entertain doubt on the topic.

They are antonyms. You CANNOT be a gnostic agnostic any more than you can be symmetrical asymmetrical, typical atypical, etc. They are mutually exclusive opposites.

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:
Even as an adjective, it doesn't mean what you say it means. A thing cannot be both itself and not itself, but that isn't the case with gnostic and agnostic. One can easily be a gnostic agnostic, that is, to have knowledge yet not be committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. one can even be an agnostic gnostic, that is, someone not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god, yet having knowledge of gnosis.

Really? I guess I have a do english lessons here as well. Defining Adjective:
Dictionary - any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns
Free Dictionary - The part of speech that modifies a noun
Collins - any of a class of words used to modify a noun
Cambridge - a word that describes a noun or pronoun:

So when I say than "I am gnostic" the noun is me and the adjective that describes me (the noun) is gnostic.

Gnostic comes from the greek word gnosis which means knowledge. So gnostic means to have knowledge and agnostic mean to not have knowledge. We have shortened knowledge down to "know" in modern language but the mean is still knowledge. When you say "I know what I'm talking about" it directly equates to "I have knowledge of what I'm talking about". These are statements of surety or certainty from a person. They are statement which don't entertain doubt on the topic.

They are antonyms. You CANNOT be a gnostic agnostic any more than you can be symmetrical asymmetrical, typical atypical, etc. They are mutually exclusive opposites.

Ah, there's the problem, you don't even know what's being discussed. Let me see if I can get you somewhere close to being up to speed. The discussion is about agnostics (and atheists and gnostics). These are people (nouns). No one gives a rat's if you think you're gnostic. That has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the discussion at hand.

And you're back to making up definitions, even though you've already agreed to a different definition;

Coveny said:

Per your definitions
Agnostic - reality is unknown and probably unknowable, and not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence
or to put another way they aren't certain, or sure about reality. Thanks for confirming I'm correct.

See also;

Agnostic
:a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

agnostic

noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic?s=t

ag·nos·tic
(ăg-nŏs′tĭk)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.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/aGnostic

agnostic
countable noun
An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. Compare atheist.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/agnostic_1

agnostic
nounsomeone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/agnostic

Not a single definition comes close to simply meaning "to not have knowledge", as you claim. You're mistaking agnostic with ignorance, they're completely different in meaning. No one says "I failed the test, I was agnostic of the subject" (at least no one outside of a parochial school or a seminary). Gnostic and agnostic are not opposites, I even gave examples that prove they're not opposites. Once again; one can easily be a gnostic agnostic, that is, to have knowledge yet not be committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. Show an error in the example.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

@Vaulk I'd say congratulations are in order, you earned your first three caution points, but I am a grandmaster in this league and have earned 28... 29 I mean.

Erfisflat · October 2017

Vaulk said:

@Erfisflat ,

I'd be completely satisfied if Scientists and Creationists all came together and took turns saying "Look we don't know, there's evidence on both sides but nothing can really be proven beyond reasonable doubt and nothing can really be disproved at this point either". Scientists should agree to continue working to discover and Creationists should continue discovering evidence on their side and respect each others' field of study.

Ask him how this post was spam.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

Vaulk said:

@Erfisflat ,

I'd be completely satisfied if Scientists and Creationists all came together and took turns saying "Look we don't know, there's evidence on both sides but nothing can really be proven beyond reasonable doubt and nothing can really be disproved at this point either". Scientists should agree to continue working to discover and Creationists should continue discovering evidence on their side and respect each others' field of study.

Ask him how this post was spam.

@Vaulk @Erfisflat Because he flags post he disagrees with as spam whenever he gets tired of "You haven't addressed my points" or insults.

Erfisflat · October 2017

SilverishGoldNova said:

Erfisflat said:

Vaulk said:

@Erfisflat ,

I'd be completely satisfied if Scientists and Creationists all came together and took turns saying "Look we don't know, there's evidence on both sides but nothing can really be proven beyond reasonable doubt and nothing can really be disproved at this point either". Scientists should agree to continue working to discover and Creationists should continue discovering evidence on their side and respect each others' field of study.

Ask him how this post was spam.

@Vaulk @Erfisflat Because he flags post he disagrees with as spam.

Oh I forgot, it's a logical, unbiased suggestion.

Wake · October 2017

@THEDENIER - "Atheism does not require faith, religion does. Morals are not supernatural, in fact, they are explained by science. Our brains have evolved so that we care for each other for the good of the species. The big bang is essentially proven fact at this point, belief in it requires logic, not faith. The underpinnings of science is a lack of faith. It saddens me that so many of you believe that science is about arbitrary assertions that are believed because they "sound plausible" not because of evidence. "

I hardly know where to start: Atheism requires the person to believe that science can actually explain everything. Not just some things but everything. And it cannot.

Morals have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Most civilizations had totally different views on morals than we presently have. Today most countries have morals that are different than others. What in the hell does this have to do with evolution?

The underpinnings of science is faith that you CAN explain something. Science is composed almost entirely of theories. They are called theories because most cannot be proven. Got that? Science is almost entirely conjecture. And I'm a scientist.

What you think of as evidence may be nothing of the kind. Why do you suppose beliefs continue to change all the time?

The Big Bang in fact is known not to be true. The motions of the galaxies and the fact that rather than slowing it's expansion rate which is required of the Big Bang, the rate is increasing demonstrates that the Big Bang Theory as is stated is NOT TRUE.

You have accepted ALL of science on faith. And that faith is just every bit as religious in nature as Christianity except they at least know that it is based upon faith.

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:
Even as an adjective, it doesn't mean what you say it means. A thing cannot be both itself and not itself, but that isn't the case with gnostic and agnostic. One can easily be a gnostic agnostic, that is, to have knowledge yet not be committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. one can even be an agnostic gnostic, that is, someone not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god, yet having knowledge of gnosis.

Really? I guess I have a do english lessons here as well. Defining Adjective:
Dictionary - any member of a class of words that modify nouns and pronouns
Free Dictionary - The part of speech that modifies a noun
Collins - any of a class of words used to modify a noun
Cambridge - a word that describes a noun or pronoun:

So when I say than "I am gnostic" the noun is me and the adjective that describes me (the noun) is gnostic.

Gnostic comes from the greek word gnosis which means knowledge. So gnostic means to have knowledge and agnostic mean to not have knowledge. We have shortened knowledge down to "know" in modern language but the mean is still knowledge. When you say "I know what I'm talking about" it directly equates to "I have knowledge of what I'm talking about". These are statements of surety or certainty from a person. They are statement which don't entertain doubt on the topic.

They are antonyms. You CANNOT be a gnostic agnostic any more than you can be symmetrical asymmetrical, typical atypical, etc. They are mutually exclusive opposites.

Ah, there's the problem, you don't even know what's being discussed. Let me see if I can get you somewhere close to being up to speed. The discussion is about agnostics (and atheists and gnostics). These are people (nouns). No one gives a rat's if you think you're gnostic. That has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the discussion at hand.

And you're back to making up definitions, even though you've already agreed to a different definition;

Coveny said:

Per your definitions
Agnostic - reality is unknown and probably unknowable, and not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence
or to put another way they aren't certain, or sure about reality. Thanks for confirming I'm correct.
See also;

Agnostic
:a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

agnostic

noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/agnostic?s=t

ag·nos·tic
(ăg-nŏs′tĭk)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.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/aGnostic

agnostic
countable noun
An agnostic believes that it is not possible to know whether God exists or not. Compare atheist.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/agnostic_1

agnostic
nounsomeone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, if a god exists:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/agnostic

Not a single definition comes close to simply meaning "to not have knowledge", as you claim. You're mistaking agnostic with ignorance, they're completely different in meaning. No one says "I failed the test, I was agnostic of the subject" (at least no one outside of a parochial school or a seminary). Gnostic and agnostic are not opposites, I even gave examples that prove they're not opposites. Once again; one can easily be a gnostic agnostic, that is, to have knowledge yet not be committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. Show an error in the example.

Yes these are people, but atheist, theist, agnostic, and gnostic describe the person. My name is Mark not atheist. How I describe Mark is an agnostic atheist. (adjective) It's common to take that adjective and transform it into a noun, however this has not been done with gnostic because it's not used in modern speech, so you won't see it defined that way in dictionaries.(unless you go back like a 100 years or so) I have given you defination, and they support my position, even your definition support my position, it's not my opinion, and you are correct it's not the topic at hand but you continue to pretend like agnostic is part of this debate... which it isn't.

EVERY definition you linked talks about not knowing as I have stated. Thanks for supporting my position.

I don't consider agnostic to be ignorance don't strawman me.

You are correct, the word has fallen out of common use and no one would say that, but just because no one uses the word anymore doesn't change it's meaning regardless of how hard you try to force it.

It wouldn't count as an example if you said you were a the living dead either, but if you want me to break down your sentence for you just for S&Gs I'm willing to:

These two statements are opposites
to have knowledge
yet not be committed to believing

As this is a religious discussion I'll use that as the example: If you know yahweh, you believe in yahweh. If you don't believe in yahweh then you don't have know yahweh. Commonly stated by worshipers of yahweh. The problem is that the word knowledge has been shortened in modern language from knowledge to know, and agnostic is used in modern language while gnostic isn't, so you need to understand that knowledge = know. It doesn't matter what you apply this too, so here is another example that is a sentence someone could say but wouldn't "I have the knowledge of how to drive, but I'm not sure if I know of how to drive" because it's an opposite. Know is a derivative of knowledge.

Evidence · October 2017

Coveny said:

@CYDdharta I agree with your dictionary definition and you say let's stick with dictionary definitions? ROFL Here are some definitions of gnostic for you because you couldn't understand the articles:
Dictionary - pertaining to knowledge.
Free Dictionary - Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.
Collins - of knowledge
Cambridge - relating to knowledge, especially knowledge that most people do not have:

Gnostic means you know, it comes from Greek where they use an "a" in front of words to mean "not". So gnostic means you "know", and and agnostic means you don't "know". It refers to certainty or surety as I keep saying and proving. The following statement makes complete sense and isn't a contradiction in any way: I don't believe god exists but I don't believe it's possible to know for sure that god doesn't exist. It's not difficult to understand if you can get past your confirmation bias. Agnostic means one thing, and gnostic means something COMPLETELY different in your fantasy. (rather than them being antonyms like asymmetrical, atypical, etc) But hey why let logic or the meaning of words stop your fantasy?

@Coveny
'ahungry': means I'm not hungry, don't believe in, or worship food, don't believe food even exist. I do not poses knowledge of food, so how could I be hungry? I believe in Evolution Theory which possesses knowledge no one really has, which took away my appetite, so now I'm 'ahungry'.

Please see Coveny's Appeal to Authority-Dictionaries long outdated, for more information.

OR, .. how about this? We, us brothers and sisters in debate, right here, right now on debatisland.com get an answer we can all agree on for the definition of the word: atheist !?

We all know what the "dictionaries say", but we also know that since the dawn of man when 'Ugg' fist came out of his cave where him and his family of 'not-yet-humanus apuses' were hiding in the fear of the dark millions and billions of years ago saying (as interpreted from the book: "Skull & Bones Speak - the story of Lucy" said:

"Ugg umm bah-humbug night, heart god whee, .. whee!", interpreted by Dr's Hans and Franz into English: "Ugg created god, so I am no longer afraid of the dark!" .. thus faith was born based on absolutely no evidence, which was the Beginning of Religion by which biological life defined words for the next 4.2 Billion years.

Amoeba quoted as saying: "Life Rocks!"

What I'm saying is that "everything" we say comes from a Religiously indoctrinated mindset. For instance the German philologist (the study of language preserved in written sources) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, philosopher, cultural critic, poet, philologist, Latin and Greek scholar whose work has exerted a profound influence on Western philosophy and modern intellectual history, was a demonically possessed psychotic idiot who was in and out of mental institutions, and died in his sisters care .. yet people quote him as if he was normal, as if what he said had some merit!? .. know what I mean?
Or like quoting Freud, who today would be locked up as a sex-pervert, and marked as a sex-offender to keep the neighborhood he was staying at safe.

"But the (whichever) Dictionaries define the word as such!" .. well yeah, so what? Has evolution of the mind stopped after each dictionary? "Nah-ah!, .. you can't use science/truth on words already established in a dictionary!" Oh really, .. says who?

atheism supposed to mean that the people who claim to be atheists don't even believe that gods exist, .. I mean really for Pete sakes? Tens of thousands of gods out there, with billions of people believing, worshipping, having sex and even offering their children to them, and having one or more of them in their homes, at the office etc. and yet here we are arguing about the definition of a word that denies the obvious reality, denies peoples claims, their set beliefs and what they see with their eyes, touch and rub daily with their hands, .. and the "definition" denies all these verifiable evidences because the "dictionary said so!" Well la-di-da!

"Well, .. umm, .. because that's what the dictionary says, duh! Forget the Bible, it's only a book written by men. Forget what billions of people say and even swear by, the Dictionaries say this, .. and that's final, .. and I believe Nietzsche (or whatever other ancient long dead possessed lunatic) would agree with me on this!"

Putting the Greek, mind you, not Hebrew or English but Greek letter "a", which supposed to mean "not" in English before a word does NOT make it "nonexistent". I have seen enough gods in my lifetime to know better.

OK, here is my opinion on the word "atheist", coming from verifiable evidence:

"atheist": Someone who does not believe that any of the man-made Greek gods that Greek theists religiously believe in and worship are really our Creator God.

Now was that so hard? And now there is no conflict. Theists can now freely believe and worship any gods they please in their respective religions, and atheists don't have to look like complete fools when they claim to be atheists. They know that there are all these religions with their god/gods out there, but they just don't believe any of them is our Creator, or the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and man. Their Religion-created stories just don't have enough evidence to justify any of them to be accepted as the Creator of all things.

Can Greek-atheism include the Hebrew Creator mentioned in the Bible?

NO.

Theism/atheism is of Greek origins, of gods the Greeks (and other gentile pagan nations believed in. Just because a Religion like the Catholics defined the Hebrew Infinite and Eternal Creator and turned Him into one of their Greek gods through a religious doctrine don't make Him a finite "being", .. or "thing" as many Greek atheists would like to label Him as. Sorry, that's not how things work. Not in reality anyways, maybe in the Religious/scientific realm, but not here on Flat Earth.

Infinite/God is not, nor cannot be made up of finite things, even if they combine all the Greek, Egyptian and Roman gods in the world into one, .. like this New World "idea" of god, .. sorry Pope Francis and Morgan Freeman, that's not how reality works. That would be religion; theism/atheism.

The moral of the story: "Don't try to find our Infinite Creator "I Am" in any religion", but look for Him through science and philosophy, the kind that seeks the "truth", through empirical evidence and not the religious kind. And once you have all the facts, when your faith is assured by evidence with enough substance, there you will find our Creator of the Heavens and Flat Earth. And come to know who you are, and why you're here!
In Jesus Name, because if you think the mental patient Nietzsche, or the sex-maniac Freud had words of wisdom to say, check out Jesus Christ in the New Testament Bible!

Coveny · October 2017

@Evidence hello again. I see you are still pushing the atheist who believes in a creator angle, and twisting the English language to fit your fantasies.

Theist is someone who believes in god(s), a creator, or a supreme being
Atheist is someone who does NOT believe in god(s), a creator, or a supreme being
You cannot believe in Jesus Christ(a god) and be an atheist. (any more than you can be a gnostic agnostic)
Religions do not create god(s), god(s) are created by men, and after gaining followers become religions. The best example of this is scientology.

Making up words, or trying to change definition, doesn't change reality regardless of how much you believe it.

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

Yes these are people, but atheist, theist, agnostic, and gnostic describe the person. My name is Mark not atheist. How I describe Mark is an agnostic atheist. (adjective) It's common to take that adjective and transform it into a noun, however this has not been done with gnostic because it's not used in modern speech, so you won't see it defined that way in dictionaries.(unless you go back like a 100 years or so) I have given you defination, and they support my position, even your definition support my position, it's not my opinion, and you are correct it's not the topic at hand but you continue to pretend like agnostic is part of this debate... which it isn't.

EVERY definition you linked talks about not knowing as I have stated. Thanks for supporting my position.

I don't consider agnostic to be ignorance don't strawman me.

You are correct, the word has fallen out of common use and no one would say that, but just because no one uses the word anymore doesn't change it's meaning regardless of how hard you try to force it.

It wouldn't count as an example if you said you were a the living dead either, but if you want me to break down your sentence for you just for S&Gs I'm willing to:

These two statements are opposites
to have knowledge
yet not be committed to believing

As this is a religious discussion I'll use that as the example: If you know yahweh, you believe in yahweh. If you don't believe in yahweh then you don't have know yahweh. Commonly stated by worshipers of yahweh. The problem is that the word knowledge has been shortened in modern language from knowledge to know, and agnostic is used in modern language while gnostic isn't, so you need to understand that knowledge = know. It doesn't matter what you apply this too, so here is another example that is a sentence someone could say but wouldn't "I have the knowledge of how to drive, but I'm not sure if I know of how to drive" because it's an opposite. Know is a derivative of knowledge.

Still lost, I see. The discussion is about atheists, theists, agnostics and gnostics, and what they believe. This must be a hard concept for you, but the discussion really isn't about you. You're still mangling the terms. EVERY definition I linked to talks about not knowing WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS. I'm not strawmanning you, I was actually giving you more credit than you apparently deserve. At least your position would have been somewhat coherent. I would like to thank you for proving my point though.

Coveny said:

These two statements are opposites
to have knowledge
yet not be committed to believing

So, according to you, these two statements are, likewise, opposites;

to not have knowledge (agnostic)
yet be committed to not believing (atheist)

By your own words, there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

Yes these are people, but atheist, theist, agnostic, and gnostic describe the person. My name is Mark not atheist. How I describe Mark is an agnostic atheist. (adjective) It's common to take that adjective and transform it into a noun, however this has not been done with gnostic because it's not used in modern speech, so you won't see it defined that way in dictionaries.(unless you go back like a 100 years or so) I have given you defination, and they support my position, even your definition support my position, it's not my opinion, and you are correct it's not the topic at hand but you continue to pretend like agnostic is part of this debate... which it isn't.

EVERY definition you linked talks about not knowing as I have stated. Thanks for supporting my position.

I don't consider agnostic to be ignorance don't strawman me.

You are correct, the word has fallen out of common use and no one would say that, but just because no one uses the word anymore doesn't change it's meaning regardless of how hard you try to force it.

It wouldn't count as an example if you said you were a the living dead either, but if you want me to break down your sentence for you just for S&Gs I'm willing to:

These two statements are opposites
to have knowledge
yet not be committed to believing

As this is a religious discussion I'll use that as the example: If you know yahweh, you believe in yahweh. If you don't believe in yahweh then you don't have know yahweh. Commonly stated by worshipers of yahweh. The problem is that the word knowledge has been shortened in modern language from knowledge to know, and agnostic is used in modern language while gnostic isn't, so you need to understand that knowledge = know. It doesn't matter what you apply this too, so here is another example that is a sentence someone could say but wouldn't "I have the knowledge of how to drive, but I'm not sure if I know of how to drive" because it's an opposite. Know is a derivative of knowledge.

Still lost, I see. The discussion is about atheists, theists, agnostics and gnostics, and what they believe. This must be a hard concept for you, but the discussion really isn't about you. You're still mangling the terms. EVERY definition I linked to talks about not knowing WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS. I'm not strawmanning you, I was actually giving you more credit than you apparently deserve. At least your position would have been somewhat coherent. I would like to thank you for proving my point though.

Coveny said:

These two statements are opposites
to have knowledge
yet not be committed to believing
So, according to you, these two statements are, likewise, opposites;

to not have knowledge (agnostic)
yet be committed to not believing (atheist)

By your own words, there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist.

I'm discussing atheist, theists, and religion which is the discussion, but you want so very badly to agnostic which has nothing to do with this debate. I've shown you the definitions, but you seem to ignore them, and mangling the terms. Yes agnostic is currently misused as an statement on god(s) existence, and has been for so long that it's become accepted, BUT that's not what the word means as I've shown you, it's just a cowardly way of saying you're an atheist.

That's not what an atheist is.
Atheist - doesn't believe in god(s) there is literally no gray area on this definition as they all agree on the topic. It doesn't mean that you are "committed" to not believing, that would be an anti-theist. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god(s). An agnostic doesn't "know" for sure, while a gnostic "knows" for sure. Now you can say "I don't know for sure if there is a god or not" but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not you believe there is a god(s). If you believe you are a theist, if you don't then you are an atheist. If you say you don't know you haven't answered the question because it's binary. Also you are mixing the two, in the original it was "to have" and "to not have" one was positive and one was a negative, you strawmaned me by presenting two negative and stating "according to me".

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

@Coveny Could you flag one of Erfisflats posts as spam? He needs to see how it affects points apparently

THEDENIER · October 2017

@Wake "I hardly know where to start: Atheism requires the person to believe that science can actually explain everything. Not just some things but everything. And it cannot."
Atheism requires no such assertion. Atheism is not about believing in science (though many atheists believe this), it is about not believing in what cannot be proven.

"Morals have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Most civilizations had totally different views on morals than we presently have. Today most countries have morals that are different than others. What in the hell does this have to do with evolution?"
Morals a great deal to do with evolution. In fact, the overall global takes on morality are surprisingly uniform. Sure, societies have mildly different beliefs; some believe that religious tolerance is important, but other's don't for example. Importantly though, the basics are basically the same, we all believe killing is wrong unless there is a specific justification, we all believe that cheating on a partner is wrong unless you have already discussed and agreed to it, we believe stealing is wrong. You think of morals in the narrow scope of our differences, but actually, to an outside observer, it would seem incredibly uniform.

"The underpinnings of science is faith that you CAN explain something. Science is composed almost entirely of theories. They are called theories because most cannot be proven. Got that? Science is almost entirely conjecture. And I'm a scientist."
I am curious, what branch of science do you work in? The underpinnings of science is that there is a possibility you can explain something, not the definitive faith that it is possible. Did you go to the site I linked? Here it is again: http://notjustatheory.com/. Science follows the scientific method, which is about proof and testing, not conjecture.

"What you think of as evidence may be nothing of the kind. Why do you suppose beliefs continue to change all the time?"
Your stance is one I have heard many times. Yes, maybe our knowledge changes, but the fact is that according to our current evidence, science's claims are true. Maybe we are wrong, but based on what we know, that is very unlikely. As such, it does not require faith to believe in what science states, because there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, many of the views that we now realize are wrong, stemmed from a time before proof was needed for concepts to be accepted, and before science was well documented. Things have changed.

"The Big Bang in fact is known not to be true. The motions of the galaxies and the fact that rather than slowing it's expansion rate which is required of the Big Bang, the rate is increasing demonstrates that the Big Bang Theory as is stated is NOT TRUE."
No, the forces that are creating this effect are called "dark matter". The Big Bang theory has not been disproven. Scientists that know that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing still believe in the big bang theory.

"You have accepted ALL of science on faith. And that faith is just every bit as religious in nature as Christianity except they at least know that it is based upon faith."
This is simply untrue.

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

SilverishGoldNova said:

Erfisflat said:

They need to add two reactions: wtf? And BULLSH!T

Don't they already have fallacy, funny, and disagree with "bullsh!t"? Also they did have a WTF reaction once, but it was removed

Trying to get me another spam reaction so I can see how it affects my points

actually I can do it for you, as you can see you lost 5 points. happy now?

Evidence · October 2017

THEDENIER said:

@Evidence on the topic of parents and aparents. Sure, both of them are crazy, but they are legitimate words with legitimate meanings. Many of you don't understand the scientific meaning of "theory"@Vaulk Vaulk http://notjustatheory.com/ I suggest you check out this link for clarification. @missmedic ;It is impossible to prove that falafels are not actually alien messages to us. That does not mean that it requires any true faith to disbelieve that. I will never disprove god, neither will you or anyone else, but that is not evidence for his existence. Atheism does not require faith, religion does. Morals are not supernatural, in fact, they are explained by science. Our brains have evolved so that we care for each other for the good of the species. The big bang is essentially proven fact at this point, belief in it requires logic, not faith. The underpinnings of science is a lack of faith. It saddens me that so many of you believe that science is about arbitrary assertions that are believed because they "sound plausible" not because of evidence.

I will never disprove a tree, neither will you or anyone else, but that is not evidence for its existence. Atheism does not require faith, religious atheism does. Morals are not from the supernatural, demonic possessions are, .. in fact, they are explained by science and labeled mental illness (not to frighten the children.

THEDENIER - Our brains have evolved so that we care for each other for the good of the species.

All you have to do now is explain; "good of the species" in "non-random-selection" evolutionary terms? Here is what I mean:

time 0:54 and on?
Specifically "Non-random survival", .. what does "survival" mean in evolutionary terms? Evolution is what it is, so what does "survival" mean to "no one, and nothing had you in mind Mother Nature"?

Here, let me explain myself: Evolution doesn't have a plan to keep you alive or die, doesn't care about your feelings or any "idea" about what's happy, or sad, what's pain or no pain, what's good or what's bad. If you grew eyeballs on the bottom of your feet, you'll either will have to learn to walk on your toes, or on the side of your feet, while every few steps lifting up your legs to see where you're going?

There is no plan, just survival, so even the most gruesome mutant creatures, under the most painful conditions would be able to survive, .. I know, I was one of them for the first 12 years of my life. You just become tougher, especially if you had to walk on your toes for thousands of generation to survive, .. right?

THEDENIER - The big bang is essentially proven fact at this point, belief in it requires logic, not faith.

So what you're saying is that the Catholic Jesuit Priest that came up with the Big-bang theory had no "faith" in his theory? That as he was sciencing around while between reading his Bible, and whipping himself senseless (self flagellation), he seen a universe (not necessarily ours) get smaller and smaller to a singularity of infinite density, where even space nor time existed, and this speck contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe, until quantum fluctuations that was happening out of time, in a point in space without space caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe?

Now it's a Religious fact that the Big Bang did "create" the universe, which includes the Earth, plants and animals correct?

Creation - definition:

* the bringing into of existence of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.

Now you see why you Evolutionists had to reduce mans mind through Religious doctrines by priests and warlocks to an animal state, and then take even that away by telling him he has no mind, it's just the brain having indigestion from the accumulation of billions of years of environmental influence!?

THEDENIER - The underpinnings of science is a lack of faith.

Well no sht jack, .. I mean who would believe this garbage that you try to pass off as science anyways, .. right?

THEDENIER - It saddens me that so many of you believe that science is about arbitrary assertions that are believed because they "sound plausible" not because of evidence.

I mean come on, you could call anything "science", .. even; "eating a plateful of feces" = science, then put that in every dictionary, teach it to kindergartners and first graders and before you know it, that's what science would mean;
The evidence: "people eating a plateful of dung" = science.

Vaulk · October 2017

@Evidence

I'm glad you mentioned this explanation of morals. The only problem here is that your explanation is logically insufficient to explain "Selflessness".

Vaulk: Why should I be selfless?

Science: Because it's good for your Species.

Problem: Science has presupposed another Moral: Benefit others.

Vaulk: Why should I care about what's good for my Species?

Science: Because what's good for your species will ultimately assist in the survival of your Species.

Problem: Science has presupposed yet another Moral: Be willing to sacrifice.

Vaulk: Why should I care about the survival of my Species?

Science: Because if your Species doesn't survive then you will die.

Vaulk: So I should be selfless in order to best serve myself? This is incompatible with selflessness and in direct conflict with the moral itself. This explanation does not pass the test of logic.

You can try to explain away Morality with pseudo-science but the end result will never pass reasonable doubt. You cannot observe Morality, it has no chemical composition nor does it have mass. It is not of the physical or natural world and therefor is beyond scientific understanding. There are multiple theories that can be applied to Morality, none of which are scientific for failure to use the Scientific Method, but theories none-the-less. Regardless, the pseudo-science used to explain Morality is, above all, insufficient in explaining how our Morality came to be as explained above, one simply cannot explain that selflessness comes from concern for one's self...I have children under the age of 5 that could explain why that doesn't make sense.

Coveny · October 2017

The strawman...it burns.

Vaulk · October 2017

Evidence said:

Morals are not from the supernatural, demonic possessions are, .. in fact, they are explained by science and labeled mental illness (not to frighten the children.

Vaulk said:

@Evidence

I'm glad you mentioned this explanation of morals. The only problem here is that your explanation is logically insufficient to explain "Selflessness".

Vaulk: Why should I be selfless?

Science: Because it's good for your Species.

Problem: Science has presupposed another Moral: Benefit others.

Vaulk: Why should I care about what's good for my Species?

Science: Because what's good for your species will ultimately assist in the survival of your Species.

Problem: Science has presupposed yet another Moral: Be willing to sacrifice.

Vaulk: Why should I care about the survival of my Species?

Science: Because if your Species doesn't survive then you will die.

Vaulk: So I should be selfless in order to best serve myself? This is incompatible with selflessness and in direct conflict with the moral itself. This explanation does not pass the test of logic.

You can try to explain away Morality with pseudo-science but the end result will never pass reasonable doubt. You cannot observe Morality, it has no chemical composition nor does it have mass. It is not of the physical or natural world and therefor is beyond scientific understanding. There are multiple theories that can be applied to Morality, none of which are scientific for failure to use the Scientific Method, but theories none-the-less. Regardless, the pseudo-science used to explain Morality is, above all, insufficient in explaining how our Morality came to be as explained above, one simply cannot explain that selflessness comes from concern for one's self...I have children under the age of 5 that could explain why that doesn't make sense.

The false fallacy fallacy occurs when an argument is falsely claimed to be a logical fallacy when it is actually valid. This fallacy is a type of straw man argument. False fallacy arguments are used by those who do not comprehend the fallacies they claim are being committed. This fallacy can be very effectively used by those attempting to deceive an audience that is unfamiliar with the fallacies claimed.

http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=208

Coveny · October 2017

Vaulk said:

Evidence said:

Morals are not from the supernatural, demonic possessions are, .. in fact, they are explained by science and labeled mental illness (not to frighten the children.

Vaulk said:

@Evidence

I'm glad you mentioned this explanation of morals. The only problem here is that your explanation is logically insufficient to explain "Selflessness".

Vaulk: Why should I be selfless?

Science: Because it's good for your Species.

Problem: Science has presupposed another Moral: Benefit others.

Vaulk: Why should I care about what's good for my Species?

Science: Because what's good for your species will ultimately assist in the survival of your Species.

Problem: Science has presupposed yet another Moral: Be willing to sacrifice.

Vaulk: Why should I care about the survival of my Species?

Science: Because if your Species doesn't survive then you will die.

Vaulk: So I should be selfless in order to best serve myself? This is incompatible with selflessness and in direct conflict with the moral itself. This explanation does not pass the test of logic.

You can try to explain away Morality with pseudo-science but the end result will never pass reasonable doubt. You cannot observe Morality, it has no chemical composition nor does it have mass. It is not of the physical or natural world and therefor is beyond scientific understanding. There are multiple theories that can be applied to Morality, none of which are scientific for failure to use the Scientific Method, but theories none-the-less. Regardless, the pseudo-science used to explain Morality is, above all, insufficient in explaining how our Morality came to be as explained above, one simply cannot explain that selflessness comes from concern for one's self...I have children under the age of 5 that could explain why that doesn't make sense.

The false fallacy fallacy occurs when an argument is falsely claimed to be a logical fallacy when it is actually valid. This fallacy is a type of straw man argument. False fallacy arguments are used by those who do not comprehend the fallacies they claim are being committed. This fallacy can be very effectively used by those attempting to deceive an audience that is unfamiliar with the fallacies claimed.

http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=208

Science doesn't believe selflessness is good for the species.

Even if it did, it wouldn't be a justification from "moral" angle.

Being selfless is actually bad for the species which you highlight with the "Be willing to sacrifice" which kills a member of the species. If you know anything about evolution, then you know it's all about NOT dying and making offspring. Now had you stated defense of your children, that might fall in line with science/evolution, but then it's still not about morals it's about genetics and primail instincts.

The most absurd statement being "if your Species doesn't survive then you will die", so if all the other humans on the planet died, I would just fall over dead as well because my species is dead? ROFL I mean the misrepresentation is SO bad, and makes no sense.

Of course you fit right in here I guess...

Evidence · October 2017

Vaulk said:

@Erfisflat ,

I'd be completely satisfied if Scientists and Creationists all came together and took turns saying "Look we don't know, there's evidence on both sides but nothing can really be proven beyond reasonable doubt and nothing can really be disproved at this point either". Scientists should agree to continue working to discover and Creationists should continue discovering evidence on their side and respect each others' field of study.

How?
How do you expect "Creationists" (who you say just believe in either gods, or a dung heap without any evidence) would go to discover evidence of anything? How, .. by "blind-science"?? Hmm, .. that is exactly what you have:

Here is the BB-Evolutions dictionary:
Creationism = faith without evidence
faith without evidence = Religion
The Big bang was created by the "Catholic Religion" by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Thus this Big Bang/Evolution theory type of science is based on faith, .. which is by your definition; without evidence.

Soo, .. since the scientists who discovered the Big Bang theory are the same people who believe in "Creation", then obviously they do agree to continue to discover, because it is the same Religion who continue discovering evidence based on blind faith, .. and of course they respect each others' field of study! How could they not agree? Look:

Please watch this next video, it's only 10 minutes

time 6:30
* The Catholic Religion invented the Big Bang theory and the cosmos (this imaginary space/universe with planets, they have the LUCIFER telescope, and are very much involved in relativity and quantum physics which ties them to 666CERN.
* is a firm believer in the Evolution theory, includes the creation of all plant and animal life evolved from stardust
* believe in gods (plural as in the trinity-gods) where Jesus is fully man and fully god, who They believe was also born of the stars/sun and thus is the sun-god.

So you guys see, theist/atheist, science/creation all governed by Religion, and it's the same 1,700 year old Religion that proudly proclaims the Bible as the basis of their faith. And this is who taught our grandparents, our parents, us and now our children, .. going back 1,700 years. This is why events like 9-11, Dunkirk, Normandy, and this completely ridiculous Vegas attack is unquestioned by even those that are asked to participate in it. Is why Flat Earthers like Eric Dubay don't believe in God, and anti-Evolutionist like Kent Hovind can't accept the Flat Earth!?!?

We are finished, done, brainwashed to a point of no return, .. 1,700 years under the Religious rulers whose god is of this world, Lucifer himself, has done us all in.

All the world's has become a stage for deities,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being twofold, theist and atheist
whether he admits or not, he is governed by
Religion and their deities/demons
which they worship as gods. They all switch between two choices,
between the Yin and the Yang, gods or no gods,
light or darkness from the same source
can mean only one thing:
death.
We are the walking dead, .. zombies and proud of it!
Tattoo it on our bodies, on our faces, piercing it on our skin

What's next, .. GMO glow in the dark green or red skin colors?

Evidence · October 2017

Vaulk said:

Evidence said:

Morals are not from the supernatural, demonic possessions are, .. in fact, they are explained by science and labeled mental illness (not to frighten the children.

Vaulk said:

@Evidence

I'm glad you mentioned this explanation of morals. The only problem here is that your explanation is logically insufficient to explain "Selflessness".

Vaulk: Why should I be selfless?

Science: Because it's good for your Species.

Problem: Science has presupposed another Moral: Benefit others.

Vaulk: Why should I care about what's good for my Species?

Science: Because what's good for your species will ultimately assist in the survival of your Species.

Problem: Science has presupposed yet another Moral: Be willing to sacrifice.

Vaulk: Why should I care about the survival of my Species?

Science: Because if your Species doesn't survive then you will die.

Vaulk: So I should be selfless in order to best serve myself? This is incompatible with selflessness and in direct conflict with the moral itself. This explanation does not pass the test of logic.

You can try to explain away Morality with pseudo-science but the end result will never pass reasonable doubt. You cannot observe Morality, it has no chemical composition nor does it have mass. It is not of the physical or natural world and therefor is beyond scientific understanding. There are multiple theories that can be applied to Morality, none of which are scientific for failure to use the Scientific Method, but theories none-the-less. Regardless, the pseudo-science used to explain Morality is, above all, insufficient in explaining how our Morality came to be as explained above, one simply cannot explain that selflessness comes from concern for one's self...I have children under the age of 5 that could explain why that doesn't make sense.

The false fallacy fallacy occurs when an argument is falsely claimed to be a logical fallacy when it is actually valid. This fallacy is a type of straw man argument. False fallacy arguments are used by those who do not comprehend the fallacies they claim are being committed. This fallacy can be very effectively used by those attempting to deceive an audience that is unfamiliar with the fallacies claimed.

http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=208

Thank you @Vaulk, I agree with you on the morality issue, science vs Vaulk, .. I think I do anyways!?

Sorry, but I don't really understand your reply below the other one, and most likely that would be my fault, not yours. I have to absorb it all, .. like through osmosis, looking up words and studying them to understand, lol but sad.

OK, so are you saying that I committed the Fallacy, fallacy, .. or that Evolutionary science did?

Did you understand my initial comment?

Evidence said: "Morals are not from the supernatural, demonic possessions are, .. in fact, they are explained by science and labeled mental illness (not to frighten the children.)

I don't believe our Infinite Creator God resides in Earths supernatural realm, instead it's the fallen angels and demonic spirits that reside there.
Infinite Creator God resides in Heaven (well so to speak, since even Heaven is 'in' Infinite/God), from where He "reveals His will" through our mind/spirit of us who know and believe in Him.

Christian Ministers who go to schools of Divinity are actually certified Diviners who do not know God, so they, either willingly or out of ignorance become 'mediums' (witches/warlocks) to supernatural beings/demons, thus the morals they receive from there can be anything from good, to downright demonic. The end result is always to deny our One True, and Only Possible Infinite Creator.

Here is an example:
Jesus taught us to "love one another, .. do good to them that hate us, .. to turn the other cheek," .. etc., while these Christian mediums receive the OK from the 'beings' who reside in the supernatural realm to go and kill helpless, outgunned, weak people for our corrupt governments lead by ungodly Leaders, for selfish reasons. They see nothing wrong with that, matter of fact Christians justify going to war even against another Christian Nation!? This shows 'debased minds', or demon-lead, deceived minds.

That was my purpose in saying what I said, also that this so called BB-Evolution science denies demonic possession, and labels it "mental illness" instead.

As far as science and pseudoscience, I understand BB-Evolution and their doctrines as Pseudoscience. Their whole concept relies on, .. for the BB-theory it's "gravity", and for Evolution it's "survival of the species through selection", .. is that how you understand it too?

Vaulk · October 2017

@Evidence

The comment below wasn't directed at you but I've given up on replying to certain people on here and THAT comment will give you an idea of why. The Fallacy Fallacy was someone else who made a snide comment that insinuated that my argument was invalid.

As for the understanding of pseudoscience, as far as evolution goes it's my understanding that the principle relies heavily upon the presupposition that natural selection accounts for all of it. Nothing was intentional no matter how many hundreds of billions of zeroes there are behind the number vs one of the odds of it happening that way. As far as Big Bang, well I'd direct you to watch the Ben Stein documentary on Intelligent Design. I love Stein and he really does tackle the entirety of the Big Bang Theory and eventually gets a very prominent member of the Atheist movement to admit that "At some point" there HAD to have been something that intentionally set it all into motion...even if it did just go "Bang". I can't be sure what Atheists believe today concerning how all the elements became present for the Big Bang.

Vaulk · October 2017

Coveny said:

Science doesn't believe selflessness is good for the species.

Even if it did, it wouldn't be a justification from "moral" angle.

Being selfless is actually bad for the species which you highlight with the "Be willing to sacrifice" which kills a member of the species. If you know anything about evolution, then you know it's all about NOT dying and making offspring. Now had you stated defense of your children, that might fall in line with science/evolution, but then it's still not about morals it's about genetics and primail instincts.

Outstanding, so then you admit that the Moral of Selflessness (Which I doubt anyone can deny its existence in our moral code) is completely without scientific reasoning. This is actually perfect because if I'm not mistaken, @Coveny is openly Atheist and has just now admitted that Selflessness (According to Science) is not good for the species...it's "Actually bad for the species". He goes further to state that "Evolution is all about NOT dying and making offspring". So if morals can be explained with evolutionary theory but evolution is incompatible with selflessness and selflessness exists...then Evolution cannot account for selflessness by your very own logic and admission.

Thank you.

Coveny · October 2017

Vaulk said:

Coveny said:

Science doesn't believe selflessness is good for the species.

Even if it did, it wouldn't be a justification from "moral" angle.

Being selfless is actually bad for the species which you highlight with the "Be willing to sacrifice" which kills a member of the species. If you know anything about evolution, then you know it's all about NOT dying and making offspring. Now had you stated defense of your children, that might fall in line with science/evolution, but then it's still not about morals it's about genetics and primail instincts.

Outstanding, so then you admit that the Moral of Selflessness (Which I doubt anyone can deny its existence in our moral code) is completely without scientific reasoning. This is actually perfect because if I'm not mistaken, @Coveny is openly Atheist and has just now admitted that Selflessness (According to Science) is not good for the species...it's "Actually bad for the species". He goes further to state that "Evolution is all about NOT dying and making offspring". So if morals can be explained with evolutionary theory but evolution is incompatible with selflessness and selflessness exists...then Evolution cannot account for selflessness by your very own logic and admission.

Thank you.

Oh wow, that was a decent argument... it's refreshing to take a break from all the smack talk on this site. I mean it's still twisting, and it's wrong, but it's decent.

I can and do deny selflessness in our "moral code". No one is expected to act selflessly in our society, and I would even go a step further and say the only reason it gets all the good press it gets is to take advantage of others, and the fact that there aren't selfless individuals in the world proves that the trait to take advantage of them, killed them off. (Mother Theresa was very selfish for instance) Also I'll say again science doesn't "prove" morals, science doesn't prove what's right or what's wrong, science proves what works and what doesn't, we as a society use that information to update our morals but science isn't responsible for what we do with the information it provides us.

Now lets get to your decent argument. "if morals can be explained with evolutionary theory but evolution is incompatible with selflessness and selflessness exists...then Evolution cannot account for selflessness"

Evolution explains morals because we are social animals, so we have evolved traits that allow us to function in groups, one of these traits is morals.
Evolution is not incompatible with selflessness, contrary to what how you are twisting evolution, it doesn't create flawless creatures. Every creature is existence could be improved if for instance it had been intelligently designed to survive, but that's not reality, and that's not what evolution does. Evolution is only about who lives and makes babies. So chickens that can't fly evolved from birds that could because even though we may see flight as a good trait to have, the animals that couldn't fly lived and made babies.

So while on the surface it may seem that evolution should create the perfect creature, in reality that's not what it does at all. Just like evolution can account the animal that lost the ability to fly, it can also account for selflessness. (even though you haven't proven the existence of selflessness in our society)

Coveny · October 2017

@Evidence I'm not going to respond to you. You've proven that you love to write long meandering posts full of fluff that go off on tangents, and don't use the English language even close to correctly, and that's one of the few arguement techniques that I don't enjoy engaging because of the amount of time it takes to read through your posts to analyses and refute. Just assume I don't agree with the majority of what you say.

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

I'm discussing atheist, theists, and religion which is the discussion, but you want so very badly to agnostic which has nothing to do with this debate. I've shown you the definitions, but you seem to ignore them, and mangling the terms. Yes agnostic is currently misused as an statement on god(s) existence, and has been for so long that it's become accepted, BUT that's not what the word means as I've shown you, it's just a cowardly way of saying you're an atheist.

That's not what an atheist is.
Atheist - doesn't believe in god(s) there is literally no gray area on this definition as they all agree on the topic. It doesn't mean that you are "committed" to not believing, that would be an anti-theist. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god(s). An agnostic doesn't "know" for sure, while a gnostic "knows" for sure. Now you can say "I don't know for sure if there is a god or not" but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not you believe there is a god(s). If you believe you are a theist, if you don't then you are an atheist. If you say you don't know you haven't answered the question because it's binary. Also you are mixing the two, in the original it was "to have" and "to not have" one was positive and one was a negative, you strawmaned me by presenting two negative and stating "according to me".

I dub thee, Sir Coveny, the Word Butcher. Agnostic is misused as a statement on God existence??? God (ultimate reality, ultimate knowledge, etc.) is included in literally EVERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, and you think I'm misusing the word??? We can go with your definition, or we go with the many dictionary definitions FROM YOUR OWN SOURCES, now there's a tough choice. We could even listen to the guy who came up with the term;

agnostic (n.)
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" (see a- (3)) + gnostos "(to be) known," from PIE root *gno- "to know." Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God" in Acts, but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).
I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]

The agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. [Robert G. Ingersoll, "Reply to Dr. Lyman Abbott," 1890]
The adjective also is first recorded 1870.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=agnostic

“When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain 'gnosis'--had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ...

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic'. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the 'gnostic' of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/890528-when-i-reached-intellectual-maturity-and-began-to-ask-myself

You also seem to have difficulty with simple logic;

Coveny said:

BUT that's not what the word means as I've shown you, it's just a cowardly way of saying you're an atheist.

That's not what an atheist is.

Which is it? Are they the same, with an atheist simply being a brave agnostic, or are they different. Let me help you out; the correct answer is B, they are completely different beliefs. Theists believe there is a God, atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics believe there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not, and that theists and atheists are lying to themselves. And of course atheists are committed to their belief, that's what it means to hold a belief.

As far as the example you posted that proves there is no such thing as the agnostic atheist you claim to be; I simply posted the negative of the argument you posted. If two statements are opposites, then their opposites are also opposites. /end lesson in simple logic/ I hope I've been able to help you.

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

I'm discussing atheist, theists, and religion which is the discussion, but you want so very badly to agnostic which has nothing to do with this debate. I've shown you the definitions, but you seem to ignore them, and mangling the terms. Yes agnostic is currently misused as an statement on god(s) existence, and has been for so long that it's become accepted, BUT that's not what the word means as I've shown you, it's just a cowardly way of saying you're an atheist.

That's not what an atheist is.
Atheist - doesn't believe in god(s) there is literally no gray area on this definition as they all agree on the topic. It doesn't mean that you are "committed" to not believing, that would be an anti-theist. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god(s). An agnostic doesn't "know" for sure, while a gnostic "knows" for sure. Now you can say "I don't know for sure if there is a god or not" but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not you believe there is a god(s). If you believe you are a theist, if you don't then you are an atheist. If you say you don't know you haven't answered the question because it's binary. Also you are mixing the two, in the original it was "to have" and "to not have" one was positive and one was a negative, you strawmaned me by presenting two negative and stating "according to me".

I dub thee, Sir Coveny, the Word Butcher. Agnostic is misused as a statement on God existence??? God (ultimate reality, ultimate knowledge, etc.) is included in literally EVERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, and you think I'm misusing the word??? We can go with your definition, or we go with the many dictionary definitions FROM YOUR OWN SOURCES, now there's a tough choice. We could even listen to the guy who came up with the term;
agnostic (n.)
1 "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=agnostic

You also seem to have difficulty with simple logic;

Coveny said:

BUT that's not what the word means as I've shown you, it's just a cowardly way of saying you're an atheist.

That's not what an atheist is.
Which is it? Are they the same, with an atheist simply being a brave agnostic, or are they different. Let me help you out; the correct answer is B, they are completely different beliefs. Theists believe there is a God, atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics believe there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not, and that theists and atheists are lying to themselves. And of course atheists are committed to their belief, that's what it means to hold a belief.

As far as the example you posted that proves there is no such thing as the agnostic atheist you claim to be; I simply posted the negative of the argument you posted. If two statements are opposites, then their opposites are also opposites. /end lesson in simple logic/ I hope I've been able to help you.

And still we go round and round about agnostic instead of talking about the debate.

Agnostic means you don't know. As you have provided above, and I have provided before numerous times. This isn't a misuse of the word, and it's the antonym to gnostic which means you know. Now let's go with SIMPLE logic and see if I can get you there.

Theist - I believe in god(s)
Atheist - I do not believe in god(s)

So using "I know" and "I don't know" we get these four options applied to that

Gnostic theist - I know god(s) exist
Agnostic theist - I believe god(s) exist, but I don't know for sure
Gnostic atheist - I know god(s) don't exist
Agnostic atheist - I don't believe god(s) exist, but I don't know for sure

If you want to take away the modern usage it would look like this

Gnostic theist - I have knowledge of god(s)
Agnostic theist - I do not have knowledge of anything, but believe in god(s)
Gnostic atheist - I have knowledge that god(s) don't exist
Agnostic atheist - I do not have knowledge of anything, and do not believe in god(s)

It is cowardly to say you agnostic because you aren't answering the question of whether or not you believe in god(s). Even if you don't know for sure, you still believe one way or the other, and this is a debate technique of answering another question that you are more comfortable rather than answering the one presented to you. Now maybe there are some cases of people who know know whether or not they believe in god(s), but they are VERY rare, most agnostics state their position as "I don't believe in god, but I'm not sure", and that is an agnostic atheist who's too cowardly to accept the label of atheist so they misused the agnostic part to deflect the negativity/social backlash that comes with being an atheist. The whole discussion of agnostic and gnostic is not part of a debate as to whether or not "atheism is a religion" or not regardless of how much you attempt to add agnostic to the mix.

There is no contradiction on my position, and I'm in line with the definitions that have been provide for the words.

Wake · October 2017

THEDENIER said:

"Atheism requires no such assertion. Atheism is not about believing in science (though many atheists believe this), it is about not believing in what cannot be proven."

On this we must disagree. As I said - nothing can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt and you are implying that a man can live in that manner. What you are saying is that there is no Truth.

"Morals a great deal to do with evolution. In fact, the overall global takes on morality are surprisingly uniform. Sure, societies have mildly different beliefs; some believe that religious tolerance is important, but other's don't for example. Importantly though, the basics are basically the same, we all believe killing is wrong unless there is a specific justification, we all believe that cheating on a partner is wrong unless you have already discussed and agreed to it, we believe stealing is wrong. You think of morals in the narrow scope of our differences, but actually, to an outside observer, it would seem incredibly uniform."

I certainly have to question that. Some societies lives with morals that you were to kill anyone that threatened just you or your family - but even moved anywhere near you. Cave man is a perfect example of this. Neanderthal was wiped off of the face of the Earth due to this. The Mameluks swept like a wave over the middle east after the last Crusades killed everyone they saw that wasn't of their own tribe. They took all the proceeds of all of the farmers and moved along to the next leaving nothing but death and destruction behind. The same people they could have enslaved to feed them they killed. The Anglo-Saxons did exactly the opposite, enslaving anyone they could to enrichen themselves. The Phoneticians were pretty much friends with everyone and like today relying upon trade instead of war that wasn't necessary. Do you equate North Korea to South Korea?

"I am curious, what branch of science do you work in? The underpinnings of science is that there is a possibility you can explain something, not the definitive faith that it is possible. Did you go to the site I linked? Here it is again: http://notjustatheory.com/. Science follows the scientific method, which is about proof and testing, not conjecture."

I have worked at everything from high energy nuclear research to medical applications of chemistry. One project handed the leader a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Another an Emmy award for Sound Reproduction.

You do not understand that ALL science begins with conjecture. To say otherwise is to prove that you do not understand the scientific method at all. The entire model of science is to provide proof for conjectures. And as I said, most proofs are incomplete and a great many of them are just wrong but the "proof" can be interpreted as saying otherwise. As someone mentioned - How long has the Big Bang Theory been considered the provisional explanation for the creation of the universe? Now we know that it isn't but we don't know where it came from. We have a marvelous theory for quantum mechanics but again and again oddities keep popping up that suggest that what we MAY be looking at is nothing more than an effect of the increasingly huge amount of energy we are putting into studying it. What occurred when we discovered the Higgs Boson? Two other particles appeared that are not covered by the theory. Was the problem in just part of the theory or the entire idea?

"Your stance is one I have heard many times. Yes, maybe our knowledge changes, but the fact is that according to our current evidence, science's claims are true. Maybe we are wrong, but based on what we know, that is very unlikely. As such, it does not require faith to believe in what science states, because there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, many of the views that we now realize are wrong, stemmed from a time before proof was needed for concepts to be accepted, and before science was well documented. Things have changed."

Based on what we know? Please read what you just wrote more carefully.

"No, the forces that are creating this effect are called "dark matter". The Big Bang theory has not been disproven. Scientists that know that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing still believe in the big bang theory."

Firstly we don't have any idea at all what "dark matter" may be. We haven't a clue how to detect it and ALL experiments have failed. Blaming anything on an imaginary device is again nothing more than faith. And dark matter would force the universe to SLOW its expansion at a faster rate and not accelerate. I believe one of the leading theories presently is one in which the universe expands into nothing and then reappears in an infinitely looping series. Remember what I said about conjecture.

""You have accepted ALL of science on faith. And that faith is just every bit as religious in nature as Christianity except they at least know that it is based upon faith.""
"This is simply untrue."

But you have just done so. I realize that it is difficult to deal with this sort of thing. I'm an old man now and have struggled with it my entire life.

Is there a God? I don't know. But perhaps we should believe there is. A threat of everlasting punishment is probably a good thing for the human race.

Was there a Jesus? That was most assuredly so. He is in the records of the Greeks, the Romans and the Jews. He provided a moral structure that was ENTIRELY different from anything on Earth to that point.

And although it isn't very closely followed by civilizations at this point in time they all understand and respect its points.

Evidence · October 2017

Coveny said:

@Evidence I'm not going to respond to you. You've proven that you love to write long meandering posts full of fluff that go off on tangents, and don't use the English language even close to correctly, and that's one of the few arguement techniques that I don't enjoy engaging because of the amount of time it takes to read through your posts to analyses and refute. Just assume I don't agree with the majority of what you say.

@Coveny - I'm not going to respond to you.

OK, sorry to hear that?

Coveny - You've proven that you love to write long meandering posts full of fluff that go off on tangents,

So you don't like when I answer each subject, each point you make sentence by sentence? It's not off tangent, I specifically answer each of your statements, sometimes in various ways to make sure you understand. I even post some definitions to make sure we are talking about the same meaning of words, so we don't go off track, or off tangent!?

Coveny - and don't use the English language even close to correctly,

So correct me!? Where did you EVER correct my English? I do admit that English is my 3rd language (Hungarian, Serbo-Croatian, English), but I am quick to make myself clear in posting ample examples. Did you understand what I just wrote? I can learn "Coveny" if you like, .. would that help?

Coveny - and that's one of the few arguement techniques that I don't enjoy engaging because of the amount of time it takes to read through your posts to analyses and refute.

So it's because you can't refute any of my responses that makes debating with me unenjoyable? Yes, I had other atheist-Big-Bangers kind of say the same thing, .. I tear apart even their "one-liners" and their short summaries to my in-depth responses (which I feel is just a way for them to try to escape admitting they're wrong, or even to what they said was stupid), where I force them to answer each of their claims. This is not snap chat buddy, but a "Debating Forum", .. here we debate, .. unless you feel you can't stand your ground!?

Coveny - Just assume I don't agree with the majority of what you say.

Umm, .. if you did, it wouldn't be much of a debate now would it? But I understand, no one likes to be consistently proven wrong. Hey, sorry OK? How about I let you win a few debates, would that boost your ego to stay and debate with me?

OR

How about you change your stands on topics, like the imaginary Heliocentric Universe, Globe Earth, you admitting that you are an evolving ape, .. wait, .. I think that's it! I studied psychology a bit, and I know that people who were verbally abused, called a worthless animal that no one had in mind to be born, just an insignificant speck, .. an amoeba in world full of beautiful, intelligent and wonderful creatures, .. well it does have some negative effects on their psyche!

One negative sign is: "They don't want to talk."

Evidence · October 2017

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

I'm discussing atheist, theists, and religion which is the discussion, but you want so very badly to agnostic which has nothing to do with this debate. I've shown you the definitions, but you seem to ignore them, and mangling the terms. Yes agnostic is currently misused as an statement on god(s) existence, and has been for so long that it's become accepted, BUT that's not what the word means as I've shown you, it's just a cowardly way of saying you're an atheist.

That's not what an atheist is.
Atheist - doesn't believe in god(s) there is literally no gray area on this definition as they all agree on the topic. It doesn't mean that you are "committed" to not believing, that would be an anti-theist. An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in a god(s). An agnostic doesn't "know" for sure, while a gnostic "knows" for sure. Now you can say "I don't know for sure if there is a god or not" but that doesn't answer the question of whether or not you believe there is a god(s). If you believe you are a theist, if you don't then you are an atheist. If you say you don't know you haven't answered the question because it's binary. Also you are mixing the two, in the original it was "to have" and "to not have" one was positive and one was a negative, you strawmaned me by presenting two negative and stating "according to me".

I dub thee, Sir Coveny, the Word Butcher. Agnostic is misused as a statement on God existence??? God (ultimate reality, ultimate knowledge, etc.) is included in literally EVERY DEFINITION OF THE WORD, and you think I'm misusing the word??? We can go with your definition, or we go with the many dictionary definitions FROM YOUR OWN SOURCES, now there's a tough choice. We could even listen to the guy who came up with the term;
agnostic (n.)
1 "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=agnostic

You also seem to have difficulty with simple logic;

Coveny said:

BUT that's not what the word means as I've shown you, it's just a cowardly way of saying you're an atheist.

That's not what an atheist is.
Which is it? Are they the same, with an atheist simply being a brave agnostic, or are they different. Let me help you out; the correct answer is B, they are completely different beliefs. Theists believe there is a God, atheists believe there is no God. Agnostics believe there is no way of knowing whether there is a God or not, and that theists and atheists are lying to themselves. And of course atheists are committed to their belief, that's what it means to hold a belief.

As far as the example you posted that proves there is no such thing as the agnostic atheist you claim to be; I simply posted the negative of the argument you posted. If two statements are opposites, then their opposites are also opposites. /end lesson in simple logic/ I hope I've been able to help you.

And still we go round and round about agnostic instead of talking about the debate.

Agnostic means you don't know. As you have provided above, and I have provided before numerous times. This isn't a misuse of the word, and it's the antonym to gnostic which means you know. Now let's go with SIMPLE logic and see if I can get you there.

Theist - I believe in god(s)
Atheist - I do not believe in god(s)

So using "I know" and "I don't know" we get these four options applied to that

Gnostic theist - I know god(s) exist
Agnostic theist - I believe god(s) exist, but I don't know for sure
Gnostic atheist - I know god(s) don't exist
Agnostic atheist - I don't believe god(s) exist, but I don't know for sure

If you want to take away the modern usage it would look like this

Gnostic theist - I have knowledge of god(s)
Agnostic theist - I do not have knowledge of anything, but believe in god(s)
Gnostic atheist - I have knowledge that god(s) don't exist
Agnostic atheist - I do not have knowledge of anything, and do not believe in god(s)

It is cowardly to say you agnostic because you aren't answering the question of whether or not you believe in god(s). Even if you don't know for sure, you still believe one way or the other, and this is a debate technique of answering another question that you are more comfortable rather than answering the one presented to you. Now maybe there are some cases of people who know know whether or not they believe in god(s), but they are VERY rare, most agnostics state their position as "I don't believe in god, but I'm not sure", and that is an agnostic atheist who's too cowardly to accept the label of atheist so they misused the agnostic part to deflect the negativity/social backlash that comes with being an atheist. The whole discussion of agnostic and gnostic is not part of a debate as to whether or not "atheism is a religion" or not regardless of how much you attempt to add agnostic to the mix.

There is no contradiction on my position, and I'm in line with the definitions that have been provide for the words.

Coveny, .. you sound confused. But I won't engage in your argument since you don't want to talk to me, .. sob, .. sob, ..

OK, .. just this one thing:

Coveny - Agnostic theist - I do not have knowledge of anything, but believe in god(s)

Sorry, .. but that's got to be the stupidest remark that I have ever heard!

SilverishGoldNova · October 2017

Coveny said:

@Evidence I have went through all this before with you, and I'm not inclined to repeat it. You don't refute points you spam with tangents and fillers and abuse the English language.

80% of what you say is nothing but stupid remarks as far as I'm concerned. Let's see how long this takes to get deleted...

I just wanted to quickly remind you that I'm not a site moderator and that you need to develop and alternative to your caution signs. Now get back to your "debate"

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

4/18: CBS Evening News

In this Debate

Atheism IS a Religion
in Religion

Arguments

ag·nos·tic

agnostic

ag·nos·tic

agnostic

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

4/18: CBS Evening News

In this Debate

Atheism IS a Religionin Religion

Arguments

ag·nos·tic

agnostic

ag·nos·tic

agnostic

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Atheism IS a Religion
in Religion