Rhythmism.com

Discussing matters of atheism and science with people who choose to follow the lead of the mystical always makes for funny conversation.

Rawstylus is not an agnostic Rod, you clearly don't know what atheism is in relation to agnosticism.

let me clear it up for you in simplistic terms so you can understand broski.

atheism = the negation of theism. meaning does not believe in the existence of g-d.

agnosticism is the negation of gnosticism. from the greek root of knossos from which the word know or knowlegde comes from. meaning that the person does not know and/or is/are not sure in the existence of g-d.

Those are great dictionary definitions. Good work on that.
Rawstylus is the former. You clearly don't know how to read. You're good at copy and pasting though, that's been obvious for a long time.

I can't believe how freaking well you were able to personify everything I wrote in that picture I made with one simple sentence.

See that doods? You see that? Dammit i'm good.

Yes, you stated the obvious. It was pretty great. Give yourself a fresh pineapple.

p.s. You should really quit hovering in Rodney territory, it's making you look less intelligent than you are.

well it doesn't seem to be obvious to you or phunk, and you don't seem to understand that you're in the same fucktarded feedback loop as any deluded christian except your gods are the laws of physics and apple.

No.

Atheism is the acceptance of the fact that there's no credible evidence for god. If there is any evidence presented then yeah, we'll reconsider. All current evidence points towards there being no god though.

Science looks at evidence and then decides, religion tries to find evidence to back-up whatever it is it wants to believe, and ignores all else.

I know you're trolling, but equating atheism and religion is hilarious, and false.

ugh. read what he says. he cannot say science is 100% which leaves room for something else. this by default makes him a agnostic. is not sure and does not know. even if he was 99.9999% sure that g-d does not exist that miniscule doubt he does have in atheism would make him an agnostic.

you'll keep throwing pitches into my strike zone and i'll keep hitting them out of the park.

save yourself the embarrassment.

i do not take pleasure in belittling you but you are hovering in ridiculous territory.

Nope.... I'm not agnostic. You can call & think I am all you want, hell you can even think I believe in God and a repetitive bible reader. I don't give a shit.

see, this definition doesn't make any sense. atheism does not leave room for doubt. it means you do not believe in g-d. period. leaving room for evidence means you are not 100% sure.

agnostic.

No, it does not by default make him an agnostic. The unexplained does not default to a higher power despite what your dim addled brain would like to construct for you, this particular line of argument is not a %100 knock out of the park for you. In fact it makes you look quite dumb and single-minded, fundamentalist and atrophied. It's really embarrassing and if I was DiscoJuan I would repudiate any connection to your stupidity as soon as possible.

How can anyone be 100% on something that can not be answered? You may think you're 100% correct in whatever you believe in but in reality, you're not.

This is not what an agnostic is. Go read the definition you copy and pasted again.

you are back tracking now.

That's not the definition though. By your definition Richard Dawkins is not an atheist.

This definition is one that's been branded around by, a) religious folks and b) people who think they're smarter than they are, in recent months which demonstrates they don't understand the very nature of atheism.

An agnostic has to have *some* acceptance of faith, which is where the major difference comes in.

first of all i didn't copy and paste anything.


instead of saying NO this is not what an agnostic is, why don't you give me a clear definition and your source for it and we'll see.

because to say that i am wrong would be speaking in absolutes about a subject that has no absolutes.

however, the text book definition of an agnostic means "does not know"

What has been thought cannot be un-thought... Semantically speaking, probably interesting to argue how fascinatingly different agnoticism is from what atheists profess.

But on a more practical level, slightly higher than usual levels of wasted keystrokes for nought ITT.

Sort of, but it also has the definition that there is some evidence in support of both sides so they can't make their minds up as to which way to go.

Atheism is the acceptance that there is no credible evidence for the evidence of god.

Why would I have to present an argument. You've very cleverly presented all the arguments against yourself that you possibly could. All one has to do is read the sort of drivel(!) you've posted in here to see that you're wrong.

Like for example, putting the burden of proof on scientists to disprove the existence of God.

Idiotic.

I could also fart into a horn and have a better argument than what you've presented here.

oh wait you're serious

:\

Oh wait you're hilarious again!

Maybe it was phrased badly, but currently there is no credible evidence for god. Show me some and I'll reconsider my position, as will any reasonable atheist.

Nice cherry picking btw, as ever.

oh come now. Do you really expect me to let you get away with such a blatantly false statement? It's not cherry picking if your whole argument is built on said premise.

But like i've said before, this argument unfortunately is futile. Damn shame.

Yeah always fascinated and a little frustrated when people try to bolster their believes by challenging others to disprove their unsubstantiated position. Thats not how research works. Scientists strive to determine the existence of a phenomena and the causation or correlation of events. Scientists do not set out to prove the validity of the null hypothesis.

Its like saying I challenge you to provide evidence that a UFO did not photograph the earth last week. See this is a pointless endeavor bc the default position is nothing happened. The more meaningful exercise is disproving the null (i.e., something happened/their was an effect/here is evidence for the UFO taking pics of us).

Failing to reject the null is weak.

yea everyone knows its up to religion and jesus to disprove science.

duh.

Why are you saying we? Do you think there is no G-d? Then why bother observing Passover go eat some bacon and cheese

OH LOOK IT'S YUMPOP EVERYONE, HERE TO SPREAD JOY AS EVER.

Fuck you it's up to me what I do with respect to my life. Imo.

out of curiosity, ever heard of occam's razor?

Right... how could it possibly do that?
You can't disprove science.


Such a ridiculous thread.
DiscoJuan, you should probably distance yourself from Rod. Just sayin.

are you 100% certain there is no god?