Are you religious, Sup Forums?

Are you religious, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

nope.

No. The person at this IP address isn't religious.

No, I'm materialist.

>Do you believe that a blood sacrifice of the pure which occurred 2000 years ago was necessary for God to accept you for the original sin that your ancestors committed?

No.

That's not the only religion.

Lifelong agnostic, I come from a family of Catholics, some of them devout. Recently been toying with the idea of joining a church for charitable and cultural reasons.

No.

It's the prominent one where I live, and I reject all others as fantasy.

Yus

No, but I'm not atheist, either. I'm apathetic. It doesn't matter whether there is a grand creator or not. Doesn't even matter if such a creator cared about humanity or not, because he sure as shit doesn't now.

My race is my only religion.

Stories of jewish spooks in the sky and possible afterlives are just here to distract us from the here and now.

Survival and perpetuation of your own kind is the true purpose of all life.

yes

>apathetic to the question

The only purely logical answer. To be atheist is to say you have an answer outside of logic and to step into the realm of faith, putting you on equal footing as religion, yet most atheists claim to be purely logical. To ignore the question entirely is the only true answer that can be claimed as pure logic

yes

No, but I prefer the company of moderate Christians to militant, atheistic progressives.

I just tried mdma

pretty loose atm

Define 'religious'

Pro tip: "I follow a literalist interpretation of an Abrahamic religion" isn't the same as "being religious"

Yep

Logical or no, its a completely pointless question, that only leads to more pointless questions. "Was there a creator," leads to, "Did he just kick start the universe, or does he have an active hand in it now," which leads to "if he has an active hand in it now, does he have an active hand in the entire universe, or just portions?" which leads to, "did he have an active hand in our portion?" which leads to, "did he knowingly create us?"

All of which are entirely pointless. We are here, and while there are lessons to be learned from the past, I wouldn't consider the origin of the universe to be all that important in comparison to where we are now, where we were relatively recently (far more relevant than history before the universe's existence), and where we are going in the future.

Non.

To be athiestic about the super poo bunny that lives in your toilet and eats your feces on new years day so he can harness enough energy to black out the sun in 2017 is putting you on equal footing as religion, yet most super poo bunny denialists claim to be purely logical

No, because im capable of rational thought.

...

the only logical answer to "what if any religion is right and is there a god or not?" is "i dont know"

this is why i hate atheist V religious debates. There is absolutely no concrete evidence on either side of the argument

i worship dragons

Yes. Yeshua is the Christ. The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

I have found no solace in the artificial material trappings of this holographic reality. Something even the most learned secular scholars will attest to and argue for.

Behold Christ said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

I eagerly await the return of my Lord.

The nature of being is agnostic. Every human is agnostic.

I wouldn't say it's any more pointless than any other form of existentialism. Philosophy as a whole can be seen as pointless or it can be seen as fruitful, either way it steps out of pure logic.

Your poo bunny is a physical claim thst could be measure. God is not. A more accurate analogy would be ghosts or morality or something in corporeal like that

Exactly. If you want to discuss it you have to realize you're outside of the realm of logic and discuss it from thst frame. Atheists like to pretend they're on the logical high ground though

Fake quote

The poo bunny is magical so you can't measure it or test it.

So does the poo bunny exist or not?

What chance (as a percentage) would give the poo bunny's existence?

I am. Atheism is full of cringe and passionless people.

Your poo bunny physically interacts with the world in a specific manner and therefore could be measured

If I tithe to you 10% of my money, will you promise the bunny won't hurt me?

So do you side with one side over the other to be contrarian or because you are religious?

>calvinism
nice meme interpretation

No, you don't understand him properly because he's outside the realm of logic

Religious, but I can see how an atheist would view my comment as a form of satire.

I understand him just fine, you just made a stupid and flawed analogy. Try it again with a ghost who doesn't interact in a physical way and you might be able to create a functioning strawman

I follow the teachings of Saint Dawkins' Gospel.

>I understand him just fine
So you're an absolutist yet you pretend to logical?

What a fedora

I don't pretend to be logical when discussing existentialism or a diety, because both can only be backed by argument not by evidence. I get that you just want to meme though so continue

>My race
Are you Nazi?

Why? Do you believe in man on cloudes? Or what? Do you believe in God made allaround and who create the God?

>To be atheist is to say you have an answer outside of logic
No, it is yours initial mistake. Therefore last is wrong too.

The only people I've come across who claim to have proof of a god have all been theists.

An atheist just doesn't believe in a god much like he wouldn't believe in our friends poo bunny.

Most atheists are really 'apathetic to the question' or agnostic

>my race
>1/30 anglo,2/30 irish,3/30 german and its goes on...

So whats your race billy?

yes, Jesus Christ is my lord and savior

I'm agnostic. I can't deny the world needs religion, but can't even say anything about God's existence.

Atheists and agnostics are not the same. An atheist is claiming to have an answer, an agnostic admits he doesn't know or doesn't care, they are different beliefs, you cannot lump them together like that. A agnostic therefore has not left the realm of logic while an atheist has left it and stepped onto equal footing with a theist.

>not knowing what atheism or agnosticism mean

Read a dictionary sometime my friend

Maybe negroid?

...

>agnostic
person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
>atheist
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

atheist
ˈeJθJJst/Submit
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

agnostic
aɡˈnɒstJk/
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

They answer two different questions. Atheism is a statement of your belief, agnostic is a statement of your knowledge. An atheist realises that it makes as much sense to believe in the christian as it does the poo rabbit and thus lacks belief in any god.

The definition of agnostic literally includes "does not claim belief or disbelief" while the definition of athiest is literally "disbelieves"

>The definition of agnostic literally includes "does not claim belief or disbelief"

No it doesn't

>definition of athiest is literally "disbelieves"

Or lacks belief?

It literally does. You didn't copy and paste the entire definition lmao I see exactly where you got it from. This is pathetic man don't be dishonest if you want to have a conversation on this.

Agnoatic is literally defined as "does not claim disbelief or belief" and atheist is literally defined as "claims disbelief"

They are contradictory. An anostic is equally close to a theist as they are to an atheist, equal in the sense they contradict both and can be neither. Atheists and agnostics are contradictory by definition

...

atheist

This is not a difference in opinion, you are literally denying a definition for your argument.

Not at all. Used to be a raging internet atheist dickhead too. I don't think I could ever believe any of it, but have started thinking about going to church anyway. Sure, religion has often been bent to justify some pretty shitty behaviour, but I think there's something to be said for giving folks a sense of purpose and belonging and dishing out moral guidance.

>an agnostic statement
I don't know if there's a god. We will never know, so I won't even think any further on it

>an atheist claim
There is no God.

They are different beliefs. Agnostic doesn't claim belief or disbelief and an atheist claims disbelief. You cannot be an agnosic if you're an atheist and you cannot be an agnosic if you're a theist. I cannot help you if you fail to comprehend the difference between agnostic and atheist

And an atheist doesn't necessarily claim disbelief in a god either?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

The incorporation of disbelief in the definition is the broad definition in any case. Most accurately atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods and this is accompanied most of the time by agnosticism which is the belief that nothing can be known about the existence of god.

I swear to god your baiting but do you see the part that says

>or lacks belief

>And an atheist doesn't necessarily claim disbelief in a god either
It literally does. That is literally the sole definition of atheism. If you're confused because it doesn't sound like what you believe then you're an agnostic not an atheist and that's the source of your confusion

I praise kek, God of chaos

If you needed any more proof of who's worse, Ausfag or leaf posters, then this should summarize.

No your wrong

Lacks belief and disbelief are not the same. Let me five you an example.

You hear Chad fucked Stacey at the office party.

>lack of belief
I don't want to get involved in rumours so I'm not going to take that as truth even though he could have

>disbelief
There's no fucking way that happened you're lying

Yes.

>waisting your time with a straya shitposter.

Don't bother my friend.

>literally the next line
This is not up for debate, this is definition. Agnostic and atheist are different by definition and you've read it yourself. "Does not claim belief or disbelief" and "claims disbelief" are contradictory, you cannot be both.

Is it possible for you to wrap your head around the idea that atheism captures both people who don't believe in god and people who lack a belief in a god?

as far the people around me censored, fuck yeah.

Heck no

>is it possible to wrap your head around the idea that vegetarianism captures bog people who don't eat meat and people who do?

Do you see how retarded this is?

Atheism by definition does not include agnostics. They are not the same by definition

Yep, devout Baptist my grandfather and great-grandfather were both preachers.

Let me guess, islam?

>Every human is agnostic.
You just showed a gnostic belief in the idea that everyone is agnostic. That's ironic and stupid. You're drunk. Get some sleep.

>Atheist
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

>Agnostic
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

What do you call a person who claims that there is no evidence for a god and also claims he lacks belief in a god?

Agnostic lacks belief in God AND lacks disbelief in God. Not one or the other, both. If you just lack belief in God, you are an atheist. If you lack belief and disbelief, you are agnostic. Read the definition closely


person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
>nor disbelief in God
>NOR

please take a moment to realize the difference between NOR and OR. An agnosic lacks belief in God to the exact same degree they lack disbelief. They are as close to a theist as they are to an atheist, they can be neither and they contradict both equally. I really cannot help you if you're unable to comprehend the difference between 2 words. If they were the exact same then there would be no word for agnostic, it would be the same as an atheist.

>Agnostic lacks belief in God AND lacks disbelief in God

You do realise those are the same thing right? Lack of belief does not necessarily imply disbelief and lack of disbelief does not imply belief otherwise the definition of agnostic you put forward doesn't even make sense.

Here's a better use of the agnostic vs. agnostic atheist distinction:

An agnostic is someone who believes that it's possible that some evidence could cause them to believe in God, whereas an agnostic atheist thinks that no evidence currently in existence could cause them to believe in God.

I became a Christian after seeing the elites openly practicing Satanic worship and trying to trap people within materialism to secure their power. Christianity frees people from this trap.

...

You sound like a hardline agnostic. I was one at one point too. Now Catholic.

Gnostic Atheist -> Agnostic Atheist -> Agnostic

>belief and disbelief are the same thing

They are literally direct opposites lmao. This is what your argument has been reduced to. Holy shit man, this is not opinion, this is not up for debate, this is literally you having a hard time grasping the English language and nothing more.

A lack of belief means you think something is untrue. A lack of disbelief means you think something is true. A lack of belief AND a lack of disbelief means you do not have an opinion. It means you are not even guessing. Theists and atheists make a bet, agnostics are not gambling. An agnostic cannot be wrong and they cannot be right, they are simply not wagering, where a theist or an atheist will end up either wrong or right.

Whenever you see someone saying 'all agnostics are really agnostic atheists' you know that they're just an insecure faggot who wants more people on their side so that they can feel slightly more justified in their heretical and useless beliefs.

Literally just search this stuff up people have had these questions before and there's plenty of answers. Very clearly they aren't mutually exclusive groups

>A lack of belief means you think something is untrue
>A lack of disbelief means you think something is true

Agnostic lacks belief in God AND lacks disbelief in God

So an agnostic believes it is both true and untrue that a god exists?

>Literally just search this stuff up people have had these questions before and there's plenty of answers. Very clearly they aren't mutually exclusive groups
That's the same argument feminists use.

>muh dictionary definition
>muh google

Actually, that wouldn't surprise me: do you believe in equality?

You literally can't understand the difference between 2 words. I tried to help you but you've proven immune go explication and definitions even when your own copy and pasted definitions prove you wrong. I'm not wasting any more time trying to convince a person that the literal definition of something is what the word means.

Good luck with your research if you continue looking this up

They simply believe that the fence is comfortable to sit on for the time being.

No, but I can't stand most of my fellow non believers.

No answer my last post because you directly contradicted yourself

they don't believe it's both true and untrue. They believe it's neither. See the word ~~~~LACK~~~~~~

That's what agnosticism is. It's not wagering. It's not guessing. It's not thinking about it. It's apathy. It's not caring and focusing on something else. Where atheism is making a bet

So do atheists

Forever and always