More than half of the people in this thread didn't even understand the OP.
Originally posted by BEI don't really believe in god. I believe in the big bang theory and evolution.
Yea, so your answer to the thread would be that you believe in "god", as the thread defined it.
Ladida's post was pretty much off-topic too.
Originally posted by King BooQuick definition of Atheism: the belief that God does not exist.
Care to share where you found that definition?
Preferably from a reliable source, making it up yourself or reading it on forums isn't exactly reliable, and since I share K3fka's thoughts I'm not exactly sure where you got that from.
Wikipedia says, with two citations so I'd assume it's pretty reliable, that Atheism "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. [...] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist".
There is no faith involved in saying that there's no dog biting your leg, since you're clearly not feeling any pain.
That Atheism wouldn't exist without Theism is self-explanatory, the name itself already suggests it, after all nobody would have gone "dude, I don't think god exists!" when the concept of god hasn't even been created.
I'm not exactly sure how this backs up any of your (or my) arguments anyway.
Originally posted by King BooBecause agnosticism is just a damn opinion.
But that's what all religions are.
Originally posted by Wikipedia on OpinionIn general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.
Sounds exactly like every religious argument ever, wouldn't you agree?
However, you're right that Agnosticism isn't a religious choice, but rather the choice not to make any religious choice.
Which conflicts with your own point
Originally posted by King Boo4. Running out of steam? You didn't even bother to throw any evidence in this one.
a) His "evidence" was in his second point; he specifically stated that agnosticism is the acceptance of not being able to know whether god exists or not, which is true, and as such much different.
b) Deism is most definitely a belief, the
belief that there is a god
with the rejection of any revelations, i.e. interaction with humankind of any kind.
I know this must be getting old, but check out ye olde wikipedia articles on
Deism and
Agnosticism.
Observe how the agnosticism article
specifically avoids the use of the word belief in its definition, but rather pinpoints that it is the stance that no belief, be it leaning towards theism or atheism, has sufficient grounds to be considered rational.
Originally posted by King BooHard concept to grasp, I know. Don't worry, you'll get it. [...]
Don't flatter yourself.
This is not how you lead an argument, this is just insulting the person you're arguing with (
ad hominem) and is not acceptable, especially since you have yet to give any sources for your points. Always assume the opposing to be just as, if not more intelligent than you.
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
And don't go "but Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, everybody knows that!"
Please, we don't live in 2007 any more.
Your layout has been removed.