First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/10 , edited 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Do You believe their is a god? Yes or No?
If you do not believe their is a god do to lack of evidence for one but are willing to change you mind if evidence ever appears for a god, than your an Atheist.

Most people who claim to be Agnostic is really an atheist, who just does not understand what the word Atheist stands for.
Lack of belief.. (usually do to lack of evidence.)


Both theist and Atheist can be called agnostic as well, as more than 60% of theist and 98% o Atheist, admit that their not 100% certain of anything. But Agnosticism answers a totally different question than what Atheist and Theist answer.

An so calling one self a agnostic really does not answer the question that was asked, do you believe? (its not about certainties its about beliefs or lack of.)



My answer is "I don't think anyone has either proven or disproven that such being exists so I'm sitting this one out"

lol no. That would make you Agnostic Atheist, which is still considered part of agnosticism

Yes, but the fact that you're leaving open the possibility that a being known as God exists stops you from being atheist.
You can't be Christian and believe in Allah at the same time, you know


I don't see the problem here. This is like asking someone whether he likes Band A or Band B and then calling him an indecisive faggot for picking both.


People have also not proven or disproved Trolls, Flying Dragons, Blue Smurfs, Elves, Sasquatch on Mars, a moon made out of Cheese Cake.
The point is things people dream up can not be proven but they also can not be disproved. (an so the lack of evidence in it self is logically evidence against it.)


LOL that is where your wrong, again Agnosticism is a answer to another question. An has nothing to do with the question do you believe or not. And so one can be a Atheist/theist and still be a agnostic as well.

Wrong, you find 98% of atheist do not claim certainty of anything, why because it leaves us open for change. But in the same time we accept that at this time do to lack of evidence it is irrational to believe in a god. An so we do not believe till evidence is found showing otherwise. (that is what Atheism entails. ) Like I said in blue, Agnosticism and Atheism are about two different things, and so you can be both. (you just do not understand what words stand for like I have pointed out. The fact is people claiming to be agnostic just do not understand what the word Atheist stands for.

NO!!
Its the polar opposites so your comparison fails.
It be more like the question; Are you going to eat that last M&M? Its ether yes I am going to eat it, or No I don't plan on eating it. You can not go both because one entails you can not be or do the other.
An just in case your thinking about sharing that M&M than your still eating the M&M so your still picking one over the other.

174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10 , edited 8/29/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Do You believe their is a god? Yes or No?
If you do not believe their is a god do to lack of evidence for one but are willing to change you mind if evidence ever appears for a god, than your an Atheist.

Most people who claim to be Agnostic is really an atheist, who just does not understand what the word Atheist stands for.
Lack of belief.. (usually do to lack of evidence.)

Both theist and Atheist can be called agnostic as well, as more than 60% of theist and 98% o Atheist, admit that their not 100% certain of anything. But Agnosticism answers a totally different question than what Atheist and Theist answer.

An so calling one self a agnostic really does not answer the question that was asked, do you believe? (its not about certainties its about beliefs or lack of.)



My answer is "I don't think anyone has either proven or disproven that such being exists so I'm sitting this one out"

lol no. That would make you Agnostic Atheist, which is still considered part of agnosticism

Yes, but the fact that you're leaving open the possibility that a being known as God exists stops you from being atheist.
You can't be Christian and believe in Allah at the same time, you know


I don't see the problem here. This is like asking someone whether he likes Band A or Band B and then calling him an indecisive faggot for picking both.


People have also not proven or disproved Trolls, Flying Dragons, Blue Smurfs, Elves, Sasquatch on Mars, a moon made out of Cheese Cake.
The point is things people dream up can not be proven but they also can not be disproved. (an so the lack of evidence in it self is logically evidence against it.)


LOL that is where your wrong, again Agnosticism is a answer to another question. An has nothing to do with the question do you believe or not. And so one can be a Atheist/theist and still be a agnostic as well.

Wrong, you find 98% of atheist do not claim certainty of anything, why because it leaves us open for change. But in the same time we accept that at this time do to lack of evidence it is irrational to believe in a god. An so we do not believe till evidence is found showing otherwise. (that is what Atheism entails. ) Like I said in blue, Agnosticism and Atheism are about two different things, and so you can be both. (you just do not understand what words stand for like I have pointed out. The fact is people claiming to be agnostic just do not understand what the word Atheist stands for.

NO!!
Its the polar opposites so your comparison fails.
It be more like the question; Are you going to eat that last M&M? Its ether yes I am going to eat it, or No I don't plan on eating it. You can not go both because one entails you can not be or do the other.
An just in case your thinking about sharing that M&M than your still eating the M&M so your still picking one over the other.



Is there any written records of this things existing?

nope.jpg
Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists where as Atheist is the belief that there are no deities
Agnosticism is the view that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of Gods.
Do you see the problem here?


(Sorry for suddenly changing the color. I just realized how annoying yellow looks like)
Then that means 98% of atheists are actually agnostic also, [citation needed]


What's stopping him from answering "I don't know man, I really like M&Ms but I'm not in the mood right now. Let me think this one through" or "dunno lol" ?
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/10 , edited 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Do You believe their is a god? Yes or No?
If you do not believe their is a god do to lack of evidence for one but are willing to change you mind if evidence ever appears for a god, than your an Atheist.

Most people who claim to be Agnostic is really an atheist, who just does not understand what the word Atheist stands for.
Lack of belief.. (usually do to lack of evidence.)


Both theist and Atheist can be called agnostic as well, as more than 60% of theist and 98% o Atheist, admit that their not 100% certain of anything. But Agnosticism answers a totally different question than what Atheist and Theist answer.

An so calling one self a agnostic really does not answer the question that was asked, do you believe? (its not about certainties its about beliefs or lack of.)



My answer is "I don't think anyone has either proven or disproven that such being exists so I'm sitting this one out"

lol no. That would make you Agnostic Atheist, which is still considered part of agnosticism

Yes, but the fact that you're leaving open the possibility that a being known as God exists stops you from being atheist.
You can't be Christian and believe in Allah at the same time, you know


I don't see the problem here. This is like asking someone whether he likes Band A or Band B and then calling him an indecisive faggot for picking both.


People have also not proven or disproved Trolls, Flying Dragons, Blue Smurfs, Elves, Sasquatch on Mars, a moon made out of Cheese Cake.
The point is things people dream up can not be proven but they also can not be disproved. (an so the lack of evidence in it self is logically evidence against it.)


LOL that is where your wrong, again Agnosticism is a answer to another question. An has nothing to do with the question do you believe or not. And so one can be a Atheist/theist and still be a agnostic as well.

Wrong, you find 98% of atheist do not claim certainty of anything, why because it leaves us open for change. But in the same time we accept that at this time do to lack of evidence it is irrational to believe in a god. An so we do not believe till evidence is found showing otherwise. (that is what Atheism entails. ) Like I said in blue, Agnosticism and Atheism are about two different things, and so you can be both. (you just do not understand what words stand for like I have pointed out. The fact is people claiming to be agnostic just do not understand what the word Atheist stands for.

NO!!
Its the polar opposites so your comparison fails.
It be more like the question; Are you going to eat that last M&M? Its ether yes I am going to eat it, or No I don't plan on eating it. You can not go both because one entails you can not be or do the other.
An just in case your thinking about sharing that M&M than your still eating the M&M so your still picking one over the other.



Is there any written records of this things existing?



Their is records of Dwarfs, Trolls, elves, sprites, gnomes, Giants,flying Dragons that throw fire, Titans, 10,000's of Gods, Gaia Tree, Turtle earth, and cyclopes. But just because their are historical stories of them, don't make them true. Their created to keep people in line, or explain things they do not understand.
Give personalty and life to natural phenomena. Such as earth quakes, storms, and the sun.


Even the bible claims that unicorns, Giants, and ferries are real.


174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Do You believe their is a god? Yes or No?
If you do not believe their is a god do to lack of evidence for one but are willing to change you mind if evidence ever appears for a god, than your an Atheist.

Most people who claim to be Agnostic is really an atheist, who just does not understand what the word Atheist stands for.
Lack of belief.. (usually do to lack of evidence.)


Both theist and Atheist can be called agnostic as well, as more than 60% of theist and 98% o Atheist, admit that their not 100% certain of anything. But Agnosticism answers a totally different question than what Atheist and Theist answer.

An so calling one self a agnostic really does not answer the question that was asked, do you believe? (its not about certainties its about beliefs or lack of.)



My answer is "I don't think anyone has either proven or disproven that such being exists so I'm sitting this one out"

lol no. That would make you Agnostic Atheist, which is still considered part of agnosticism

Yes, but the fact that you're leaving open the possibility that a being known as God exists stops you from being atheist.
You can't be Christian and believe in Allah at the same time, you know


I don't see the problem here. This is like asking someone whether he likes Band A or Band B and then calling him an indecisive faggot for picking both.


People have also not proven or disproved Trolls, Flying Dragons, Blue Smurfs, Elves, Sasquatch on Mars, a moon made out of Cheese Cake.
The point is things people dream up can not be proven but they also can not be disproved. (an so the lack of evidence in it self is logically evidence against it.)


LOL that is where your wrong, again Agnosticism is a answer to another question. An has nothing to do with the question do you believe or not. And so one can be a Atheist/theist and still be a agnostic as well.

Wrong, you find 98% of atheist do not claim certainty of anything, why because it leaves us open for change. But in the same time we accept that at this time do to lack of evidence it is irrational to believe in a god. An so we do not believe till evidence is found showing otherwise. (that is what Atheism entails. ) Like I said in blue, Agnosticism and Atheism are about two different things, and so you can be both. (you just do not understand what words stand for like I have pointed out. The fact is people claiming to be agnostic just do not understand what the word Atheist stands for.

NO!!
Its the polar opposites so your comparison fails.
It be more like the question; Are you going to eat that last M&M? Its ether yes I am going to eat it, or No I don't plan on eating it. You can not go both because one entails you can not be or do the other.
An just in case your thinking about sharing that M&M than your still eating the M&M so your still picking one over the other.



Is there any written records of this things existing?



Their is records of Dwarfs, Trolls, elves, sprites, gnomes, Giants,flying Dragons that throw fire, Titans, 10,000's of Gods, Gaia Tree, Turtle earth, and cyclopes. But just because their are historical stories of them, don't make them true. Their created to keep people in line, or explain things they do not understand.
Give personalty and life to natural phenomena. Such as earth quakes, storms, and the sun.


Even the bible claims that unicorns, Giants, and ferries are real.




Sorry, I fucked up the quoting and pressed the reply button waaay too early :|

But yeah, you should give things like this the benefit of a doubt.
Remember when everyone thought Troy was just a made up country and then they found out that it actually existed?
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:



What's stopping him from answering "I don't know man, I really like M&Ms but I'm not in the mood right now. Let me think this one through" or "dunno lol"?
The will to empower, for itself inherits the danger of politics:

The only sure thing, in my somewhat Machiavellian view, is that solutions to the problems of politics will not be found in a particular form of government, in a theory, in human reason, or in some truth; they will be found, for better or worse, in more politics. If poststructural political theory has a hidden foundation, it is that power and political conflict are as ubiquitous, as commonplace, as dangerous and as productive behind the bedroom door as they are in the legislature. Conflict and struggle are a permanent historical condition. Or, as Michel Foucault so famously put it, "everything is dangerous," even democracy.

From page 2 of The Will to Empower: Democratic Citizens and Other Subjects, by Barbara Cruikshank
17958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Do You believe their is a god? Yes or No?
If you do not believe their is a god do to lack of evidence for one but are willing to change you mind if evidence ever appears for a god, than your an Atheist.

Most people who claim to be Agnostic is really an atheist, who just does not understand what the word Atheist stands for.
Lack of belief.. (usually do to lack of evidence.)


Both theist and Atheist can be called agnostic as well, as more than 60% of theist and 98% o Atheist, admit that their not 100% certain of anything. But Agnosticism answers a totally different question than what Atheist and Theist answer.

An so calling one self a agnostic really does not answer the question that was asked, do you believe? (its not about certainties its about beliefs or lack of.)



My answer is "I don't think anyone has either proven or disproven that such being exists so I'm sitting this one out"

lol no. That would make you Agnostic Atheist, which is still considered part of agnosticism

Yes, but the fact that you're leaving open the possibility that a being known as God exists stops you from being atheist.
You can't be Christian and believe in Allah at the same time, you know


I don't see the problem here. This is like asking someone whether he likes Band A or Band B and then calling him an indecisive faggot for picking both.


People have also not proven or disproved Trolls, Flying Dragons, Blue Smurfs, Elves, Sasquatch on Mars, a moon made out of Cheese Cake.
The point is things people dream up can not be proven but they also can not be disproved. (an so the lack of evidence in it self is logically evidence against it.)


LOL that is where your wrong, again Agnosticism is a answer to another question. An has nothing to do with the question do you believe or not. And so one can be a Atheist/theist and still be a agnostic as well.

Wrong, you find 98% of atheist do not claim certainty of anything, why because it leaves us open for change. But in the same time we accept that at this time do to lack of evidence it is irrational to believe in a god. An so we do not believe till evidence is found showing otherwise. (that is what Atheism entails. ) Like I said in blue, Agnosticism and Atheism are about two different things, and so you can be both. (you just do not understand what words stand for like I have pointed out. The fact is people claiming to be agnostic just do not understand what the word Atheist stands for.

NO!!
Its the polar opposites so your comparison fails.
It be more like the question; Are you going to eat that last M&M? Its ether yes I am going to eat it, or No I don't plan on eating it. You can not go both because one entails you can not be or do the other.
An just in case your thinking about sharing that M&M than your still eating the M&M so your still picking one over the other.



Is there any written records of this things existing?



Their is records of Dwarfs, Trolls, elves, sprites, gnomes, Giants,flying Dragons that throw fire, Titans, 10,000's of Gods, Gaia Tree, Turtle earth, and cyclopes. But just because their are historical stories of them, don't make them true. Their created to keep people in line, or explain things they do not understand.
Give personalty and life to natural phenomena. Such as earth quakes, storms, and the sun.


Even the bible claims that unicorns, Giants, and ferries are real.




Sorry, I fucked up the quoting and pressed the reply button waaay too early :|

But yeah, you should give things like this the benefit of a doubt.
Remember when everyone thought Troy was just a made up country and then they found out that it actually existed?


Who said we don't, if evidence comes to prove other wise. We are willing to accept it. But to accept claims on no evidence is illogical.

So like I always say, do to lack of evidence I can not accept your imaginary friends. But feel free to come back and talk with me once you find your self some real evidence.

We do not need to give anything the benefit of a doubt, we only need to examine the evidence that we have, to come up with a logical outcome. Once new evidence presents its self we can reevaluate what we know.
Posted 8/29/10 , edited 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:



But yeah, you should give things like this the benefit of a doubt.
Remember when everyone thought Troy was just a made up country and then they found out that it actually existed?
Biblical archaeological discovery is different than providing physical evidence of the metaphysical existence of supernatural being. As in how do you intend on crossing the theoretical threshold of realistic existence, without subjecting God under the laws of physics? When according to organized religious teaching God is omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

'Do You believe their is a god? Yes or No?
If you do not believe their is a god do to lack of evidence for one but are willing to change you mind if evidence ever appears for a god, than your an Atheist.

Most people who claim to be Agnostic is really an atheist, who just does not understand what the word Atheist stands for.
Lack of belief.. (usually do to lack of evidence.)


Both theist and Atheist can be called agnostic as well, as more than 60% of theist and 98% o Atheist, admit that their not 100% certain of anything. But Agnosticism answers a totally different question than what Atheist and Theist answer.

An so calling one self a agnostic really does not answer the question that was asked, do you believe? (its not about certainties its about beliefs or lack of.)



My answer is "I don't think anyone has either proven or disproven that such being exists so I'm sitting this one out"

lol no. That would make you Agnostic Atheist, which is still considered part of agnosticism

Yes, but the fact that you're leaving open the possibility that a being known as God exists stops you from being atheist.
You can't be Christian and believe in Allah at the same time, you know


I don't see the problem here. This is like asking someone whether he likes Band A or Band B and then calling him an indecisive faggot for picking both.


People have also not proven or disproved Trolls, Flying Dragons, Blue Smurfs, Elves, Sasquatch on Mars, a moon made out of Cheese Cake.
The point is things people dream up can not be proven but they also can not be disproved. (an so the lack of evidence in it self is logically evidence against it.)


LOL that is where your wrong, again Agnosticism is a answer to another question. An has nothing to do with the question do you believe or not. And so one can be a Atheist/theist and still be a agnostic as well.

Wrong, you find 98% of atheist do not claim certainty of anything, why because it leaves us open for change. But in the same time we accept that at this time do to lack of evidence it is irrational to believe in a god. An so we do not believe till evidence is found showing otherwise. (that is what Atheism entails. ) Like I said in blue, Agnosticism and Atheism are about two different things, and so you can be both. (you just do not understand what words stand for like I have pointed out. The fact is people claiming to be agnostic just do not understand what the word Atheist stands for.

NO!!
Its the polar opposites so your comparison fails.
It be more like the question; Are you going to eat that last M&M? Its ether yes I am going to eat it, or No I don't plan on eating it. You can not go both because one entails you can not be or do the other.
An just in case your thinking about sharing that M&M than your still eating the M&M so your still picking one over the other.



Is there any written records of this things existing?



Their is records of Dwarfs, Trolls, elves, sprites, gnomes, Giants,flying Dragons that throw fire, Titans, 10,000's of Gods, Gaia Tree, Turtle earth, and cyclopes. But just because their are historical stories of them, don't make them true. Their created to keep people in line, or explain things they do not understand.
Give personalty and life to natural phenomena. Such as earth quakes, storms, and the sun.


Even the bible claims that unicorns, Giants, and ferries are real.




Sorry, I fucked up the quoting and pressed the reply button waaay too early :|

But yeah, you should give things like this the benefit of a doubt.
Remember when everyone thought Troy was just a made up country and then they found out that it actually existed?
Who said we don't, if evidence comes to prove other wise. We are willing to accept it. But to accept claims on no evidence is illogical.

So like I always say, do to lack of evidence I can not accept your imaginary friends. But feel free to come back and talk with me once you find your self some real evidence.


We do not need to give anything the benefit of a doubt, we only need to examine the evidence that we have, to come up with a logical outcome. Once new evidence presents its self we can reevaluate what we know.



Fair enough

>implying I have imaginary friends
Seriously though, apathetic agnostic.


Which is to say, none at all


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Biblical archaeological discovery is different than providing physical evidence of the metaphysical existence of supernatural being. As in how do you intend on crossing the theoretical threshold of realistic existence, without subjecting God under the laws of physics? When according to organized religious teaching God is omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.


I don't. You can't prove nor disprove the existence of something as abstract as God
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Biblical archaeological discovery is different than providing physical evidence of the metaphysical existence of supernatural being. As in how do you intend on crossing the theoretical threshold of realistic existence, without subjecting God under the laws of physics? When according to organized religious teaching God is omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.


I don't. You can't prove nor disprove the existence of something as abstract as God
Yet people still believing in God either out of sheer blind faith, or due to natural human social mechanism/process/manipulation within organized religions. Just like how you became a Twilight fan, through you socially interacting yourself with other fans of the said fiction, which is also an abstract concept.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Biblical archaeological discovery is different than providing physical evidence of the metaphysical existence of supernatural being. As in how do you intend on crossing the theoretical threshold of realistic existence, without subjecting God under the laws of physics? When according to organized religious teaching God is omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.


I don't. You can't prove nor disprove the existence of something as abstract as God
Yet people still believing in God either out of sheer blind faith, or due to natural human social mechanism/process/manipulation within organized religions. Just like how you became a Twilight fan, through you socially interacting yourself with other fans of the said fiction, which is also an abstract concept.


Oh my, so now you're using ad hominems?
What's the matter, Angry that I have better tastes in books than you?

Like I said, I'm apathetic agnostic. I am not part of any organized religions.
And when I say God, I mean the idea that there is something out there that our brains couldn't possibly comprehend. You know, like Giygyas? I'm not talking about Magical Bearded dude in the sky here, bro.
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Biblical archaeological discovery is different than providing physical evidence of the metaphysical existence of supernatural being. As in how do you intend on crossing the theoretical threshold of realistic existence, without subjecting God under the laws of physics? When according to organized religious teaching God is omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.


I don't. You can't prove nor disprove the existence of something as abstract as God
Yet people still believing in God either out of sheer blind faith, or due to natural human social mechanism/process/manipulation within organized religions. Just like how you became a Twilight fan, through you socially interacting yourself with other fans of the said fiction, which is also an abstract concept.


Oh my, so now you're using ad hominems?
What's the matter, Angry that I have better tastes in books than you?


Like I said, I'm apathetic agnostic. I am not part of any organized religions.
And when I say God, I mean the idea that there is something out there that our brains couldn't possibly comprehend. You know, like Giygyas? I'm not talking about Magical Bearded dude in the sky here, bro.
You assumed that I was angry at your personal preference, how? When you can't even access my social self through my Internet statement alone, because there's no real emotion within whatever that I'm writing. Therefore I'm not the one who's angry, when you had to substitute your own emotions into a fictional character that you're conceptualizing. Furthermore, your own "red herring" logical fallacy failed to provide sufficient counterargument to my objective on societal manipulation via natural human social mechanism. Not to mention is the fact that apparently there's an organized religion for apathetic agnostic, so your entitlement claim is moot.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:


Biblical archaeological discovery is different than providing physical evidence of the metaphysical existence of supernatural being. As in how do you intend on crossing the theoretical threshold of realistic existence, without subjecting God under the laws of physics? When according to organized religious teaching God is omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.


I don't. You can't prove nor disprove the existence of something as abstract as God
Yet people still believing in God either out of sheer blind faith, or due to natural human social mechanism/process/manipulation within organized religions. Just like how you became a Twilight fan, through you socially interacting yourself with other fans of the said fiction, which is also an abstract concept.


Oh my, so now you're using ad hominems?
What's the matter, Angry that I have better tastes in books than you?


Like I said, I'm apathetic agnostic. I am not part of any organized religions.
And when I say God, I mean the idea that there is something out there that our brains couldn't possibly comprehend. You know, like Giygyas? I'm not talking about Magical Bearded dude in the sky here, bro.
You assumed that I was angry at your personal preference, how? When you can't even access my social self through my Internet statement alone, because there's no real emotion within whatever that I'm writing. Therefore I'm not the one who's angry, when you had to substitute your own emotions into a fictional character that you're conceptualizing. Furthermore, your own "red herring" logical fallacy failed to provide sufficient counterargument to my objective on societal manipulation via natural human social mechanism. Not to mention is the fact that apparently there's an organized religion for apathetic agnostic, so your entitlement claim is moot.


You sound mad to me.

Which I'm not part of. Your point?
Posted 8/29/10 , edited 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:



You sound mad to me.

Which I'm not part of. Your point?
That according to the apathetic agnostic belief, your disposition is one of "don't know, don't care". Which is contradicting to your own Internet behavior, when you're apparently not expressing due to the fact that you obviously cared enough for yourself to ask a question. Unless of course, you're in fact a hypocrite to your own claims, when the reality is you couldn't possibly heard me "sounding" mad via the Internet.
174 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / la la land
Offline
Posted 8/29/10

DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:



You sound mad to me.

Which I'm not part of. Your point?
That according to the apathetic agnostic belief, your disposition is one of "don't know, don't care". Which is contradicting to your own Internet behavior, when you're apparently not expressing due to the fact that you obviously cared enough for yourself to ask a question. Unless of course, you're in fact a hypocrite to your own claims, when the reality is you couldn't possibly heard me "sounding" mad via the Internet.


What?

Apathetic agnosticism(aka ignosticism or apatheism) — the view that the question of the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences.

Where did you get that definition from, I don't even
Posted 8/29/10

kauaimore wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


kauaimore wrote:



You sound mad to me.

Which I'm not part of. Your point?
That according to the apathetic agnostic belief, your disposition is one of "don't know, don't care". Which is contradicting to your own Internet behavior, when you're apparently not expressing due to the fact that you obviously cared enough for yourself to ask a question. Unless of course, you're in fact a hypocrite to your own claims, when the reality is you couldn't possibly heard me "sounding" mad via the Internet.


What?

Apathetic agnosticism(aka ignosticism or apatheism) — the view that the question of the existence of deities is meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences.

Where did you get that definition from, I don't even
So when organized religions justified rape, slavery, torture, and even genocide in the name of God, your best defense is through your own ignorance?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.