^ haha, Geoff is proven wrong by unknown soldier, now lets do it one more time.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
to say you are an agnostic is the same as saying you are an atheist. either way, you are saying that you can not know that there is a god
Wrong. Atheists positively claim certainty that there is no god, that they do know, and he definitely doesn't exist.
wrong
not all atheists positively claim certainty that there is no god, they simply do not have a belief in one. man, you are dumb. you can be an atheist by a de facto non belief. I.e., one can not claim to know whether there is a god or not, but not believe in one, this is called negative atheism. Positive atheism is the belief that there IS NO god. an agnostic, even the kind that misuse the term, do not believe that there is a god, if they did, they could not be an agnostic, they are mutually exclusive, ergo, they are atheist.
again, with your ineptitude, it saddens me that you are involved in education.
You are still wrong from the start. Atheists who do not positively claim [with] certainty that there is no god are defined as agnostic. People who positively claim with certainty that there is no god, and nothing less, are considered atheists. People who don't know, who know that they can't know, or just don't care are considered agnostic. People who care enough to say with certainty that there is no god outright, such as Richard Dawkins or Stephen Hawking, are atheists.
So like others and I have said before, you are a fucking idiot.
hahaahahaha, the rad thing is, you are totally wrong. i have studied this topic extensively. you are a fucking moron.
here is a link to cambridge and stanford atheist/agnostic pages, they discuss these terms and their controversy/relevance. learn how to do some research and shut the fuck up.
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/hmmsoc/atheism.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
You're like Diego menendez stupid, you know that? Check out how the articles you just posted absolutely support me:
from
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1"�Atheism� means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."
Note how it says DENIAL and NEGATION, as in to say that there is none, not that one can not know.
On Agnosticism according to Huxley:
"Huxley thought that we would never be able to know about the ultimate origin and causes of the universe."
"Huxley's agnosticism seems nevertheless to go with an extreme empiricism, nearer to Mill's methods of induction than to recent discussions of the hypothetico-deductive and partly holistic aspect of testing of theories. Though we might not be able to prove the existence of God might we be able to disprove it?"
hmmmmm, sounds like EXACTLY what I said... funny.
They also point out how the term can be used in general to mean neither believing nor disbelieving in this little quote:
"it can be used in a non-theological way, as when a cosmologist might say that she is agnostic about string theory, neither believing nor disbelieving it."
That's not all, I'm just getting started- and let me tell you, putting your bitch ass back in its place is making me very happy right now. The fact that you just gave me so much to work with in calling you a complete and utter fucking idiot is further proof of how stupid you are, and is just fantastic to me.
From the other website (
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/hmmsoc/atheism.htm)
What is atheism? According to them:
"Taken at its most basic, atheism is simply the state of not being a theist, i.e., lacking belief in deities, although
it may also be interpreted as a positive belief in the absence of deities"
Just to translate for your hillarious and pleasurably stupid mind, this means that in a literal deconstruction of the word "a" means without, and "theist" as in belief in deities. Then they make it clear that the modern interpretation is the certain (positive) belief in the lack of gods.
They then point out that most consider agnosticism/atheism/theism to be more of a scale than 3 absolute positions, but what do they claim an
explicit atheist is?
"With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods � making a strong claim which will demand empirical support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god. "
They then talk about the two slightly less pure forms of atheism that are considered atheism are.
They are new atheism, which they claim:
"Old Atheists are those of the Victorian school, who believed that empiricism and science effectively ended the plausibility of religion, "
Get it? They positively think that science proved religion was false.
Next on the order, anti-theists/new atheists, who, according to the article YOU provided (hahahahahahahahahahaha... idiot) have a "a '99% certainty' that there are no Gods or other supernatural beings." What's that you say? It only says usually, and this proves your point that you don't have to positively believe there are no gods to truly be an atheist? Oh, they clarify that right here:
"Most New Atheists claim to be 'technically' agnostic, and thus avoid the pitfalls 'Strong' Atheism."
Hmmm, sounds like even with a 99% certain belief there is no god, leaders of this movement still are hesitant to call themselves truly atheist.
The thing is, the stuff you say is almost kind of in there, but at points where it comes close to agreeing with you, it always has modifiers like "some might argue" or "some claim" meaning that it is not agreed upon.
What is agreed upon not only by those articles, but also by our culture at large (as the true meaning of language is its culturally agreed upon meaning), is that atheism= certain belief in no god and agnosticism means no certain belief in god, which is what I was saying in the first place. Therefore not only are you wrong, but you are a terrible reader as well.
I'd like to close with a quote from the article that I find very appropriate for our conversation:
That was awesome. Now, here is your education that you don't think I am capable of providing (which I think probably comes from being jealous and having a social and economic position which probably gets you less respect, thus creating the desire to deride me for what I do, as you feel that I can't actually be better than you despite what society may say)-
Lesson 1: Reading articles without understanding them is not the same as "doing research." Doing research means you have not only read, but also understood and processed this article to get a greater understanding of the topic you are talking about. What I see here is that you may have read the articles, but did not understand them on even a basic level.
Lesson 2: providing an article for citation without actual quotes to specifically point to is completely useless. Without applying specific ideas in the article to the thesis you are arguing all you are doing is giving me a chance to find the weakest points in the article and arguing against them. See how the unknown soldier points to the facts and clarifies how it relates to his point? You need to find quotes in the article and do that. You need to apply specific research to the claims you make, but again, your claims don't necessarily match what each article says, which really goes back to the first lesson, which is to process and ensure you understand what you are reading, rather than just looking at the words an declaring yourself an expert when you get to the last period. Now, is there stuff you can use in there to back your point? maybe, but without actually citing the quotes that support your ideas, you allow people like me to look at an article and see words which support our side rather than yours
Lesson 3: Make sure to use the right resources for your argument. It is actually antithetical to your position when the documents you vaguely point to actually rebut your point. Now, its possible that there is academia that supports every word that you say? Yes, but that's not what you supplied.
That was awesome.