If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   People who are unsure of their own beliefs are less open minded. Suck it agnostics   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 897
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

9067 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jul 2009 at 12:32 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



897 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-07-02 07:28:48 PM
xria: as I won't be able to see his answer

you got him on ignore? why?
 
2009-07-02 07:32:32 PM
Sev79: They are, in fact, quite certain that "I don't know" is the best answer

But....how can you be so certain? ;)
 
2009-07-02 07:33:00 PM
Rockstone: I am Christian

what is your definition of a "Christian" ?

/this is to warm up for the discussion later
 
2009-07-02 07:33:18 PM
erikike: Well there was this pantry that was full of these great crackers. I eat them all the time. The were yummy and just melted in your mouth.

Yummy? Damn son, you need to have yourself a Ritz or a Triscut if you want yummy crackers..
 
2009-07-02 07:33:55 PM
The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."
 
2009-07-02 07:34:37 PM
If Santa is yer parents, then isn't it just the same thing with this god stuff?
 
2009-07-02 07:35:53 PM
CygnusDarius:
So... Does that mean God is in the Beer?.


www.filmdope.com

Aye!
 
2009-07-02 07:41:02 PM
JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."


The Believer: "Gravity exists!"
The Atheist: "Gravity does not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if Gravity exists or not and neither do you."

/oops did I make a bad analogy?
//how silly of me...
 
2009-07-02 07:44:49 PM
Oh, and because this guy's either an excellent troll or the stupidest person I've ever seen:

Milkbeer: "Do some in here find it "ironic" that our, as the media professes, completely non-religious scientific community is looking for something called the "God Particle"? Gee. What context would they even begin imagining would relate to such a seriously flawed religous biggotted fundie viewpoint such as their being a GAWDBEJEEBUS? Scientists must TEH RIGHT WHINGE NUT JOBZERS!"

The 'god particle' was originally named "The goddamned particle" because of the difficulty physicists were having in finding it. It was renamed for appropriateness. I can provide a link to the interview with the man who named it (in which he confirms what I've said) if you doubt this explanation.

If I were to name a particle "The Ganesh particle", would it suggest to you that the Hindu god Ganesh actually exists? Is that how your thought process goes? Honestly?
 
2009-07-02 07:50:10 PM
I drunk what: (b) As an inference...

So, what underlying premises, and how do they enable inference from themselves to this as a conclusion?
 
2009-07-02 08:15:05 PM
Zamboro:

If I were to name a particle "The Ganesh particle", would it suggest to you that the Hindu god Ganesh actually exists? Is that how your thought process goes? Honestly?


Well, we were afraid this asteroid was going to hit us, so naturally it was named Apophis, the enemy of Ra, the uncreator in Ancient Egyptian religion, because Apophis is real.
 
2009-07-02 08:20:07 PM
JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."


The Agnostic Atheist (Teapot agnostic): "While it is highly improbable that leprechauns do exist due to the lack of concrete evidence, I can't dismiss the possibility that they do exist however slim it may be."
 
2009-07-02 08:29:37 PM
stevedidntgotocollege: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."


The Atheist: "I have no belief in Leprechauns"
 
2009-07-02 08:32:13 PM
Always this hair-splitting about the definition of atheism.
"God doesn't exist." What's the matter with that? Worried someone's going to come out with a photograph of God one day?
 
2009-07-02 08:41:12 PM
I thought W was the decider

Thank God for SobrietyFighter

/sorry I'm late
 
2009-07-02 08:43:25 PM
i33.tinypic.com
I wants me gold!
/seriously. RTFA. It's about beliefs in general. Not about religion.
 
2009-07-02 08:48:36 PM
spamdog: Always this hair-splitting about the definition of atheism.
"God doesn't exist." What's the matter with that? Worried someone's going to come out with a photograph of God one day?


God is no more likely to exist than my dog will start speaking in fluent German one day. And God occupies as much of my thoughts and life as my wondering about why my dog does not speak German i.e. so little as to be insignificant.
 
2009-07-02 09:16:53 PM
filth: Except I'm not smug, satisfied, or convinced that I'm right. I'm merely asserting that the attempt to restrict matters of faith to logical analysis is one of the greatest exercises in missing the point known to man.

Considering that there's no other kind of analysis that actually works other than logical analysis, I agree, I must be missing the point.
 
2009-07-02 09:24:46 PM
/reads headline, nods and notes complete lack of surprise
//reads number of comments, giggles
///decision made: will not read
////second decision made, will post this comment:

Agnostics are certain that a particular question can never be answered. Yes, this is a close-minded attitude, not to mention a depressingly incurious one.
 
2009-07-02 09:33:09 PM
JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."


Damn, I read some and now I'm sucked in. Let me correct this analogy.

The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "There is no evidence that Leprechauns exist nor is there any logical reason to believe that Leprechauns exist. This is why I don't believe in Leprechauns and consider their existence to be highly improbable, but am always open to revision should sufficient evidence present itself."
The Agnostic: "I don't know, you don't know, lets just not think about it anymore and have a big 'I don't know' party in the middle of Misunderstanding Probability Square"
 
2009-07-02 09:42:17 PM
Man On Pink Corner: Considering that there's no other kind of analysis that actually works

There is too!


Or three or four or..
 
2009-07-02 09:50:59 PM
Do you actually read those from the back cover forwards, or was that photo flipped?
 
2009-07-02 09:53:04 PM
I drunk what: Rockstone: I am Christian

what is your definition of a "Christian" ?

/this is to warm up for the discussion later


Someone who believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

I'm Catholic- It doesn't get more Christian than that.
 
2009-07-02 09:54:36 PM
xria: So the people that aren't sure that gods exists but think he is an asshole have assumed that only the Christian god is possible then?

See, you have to take the cartesian product of EVERYTHING.

I mean, what about the people who think god was really just a super powerful alien that seeded the planet?

Or any one of a number of other things from the list of deities.

/------------------------------

The way I see it, people look at the universe and marvel at the complexity, and wonder how such a thing came to be

So they imagine up some god(s) to create it all.

But to me, none of that ever made any sense. You have one thing that's complex that you can't explain the origin of. So you create something else to create that first complex thing.

But at the end of the day, you now you two complex things. The second, which you can't explain the origin of. And the first (the universe), whose origin relies on the 2nd thing.

So then some folks take it a step further, and create a third complex thing to explain the origin of the second complex thing, which was created to explain the origin of the first complex thing (the universe).

And before you have it

"What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!

I can't participate in such a fallacy of logic. And I think, if you can have a deity that "just exists" and didn't need to be created by something else, then why can't you likewise have a universe that "just exists" without having to have a deity to create it?
 
2009-07-02 09:59:42 PM
Rockstone: I drunk what: Rockstone: I am Christian

what is your definition of a "Christian" ?

/this is to warm up for the discussion later

Someone who believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

I'm Catholic- It doesn't get more Christian than that.


I think you will find that IDW's opinion differs from yours, to a fairly large extent.
 
2009-07-02 10:06:03 PM
maddogdelta: Rockstone: I drunk what: Rockstone: I am Christian

what is your definition of a "Christian" ?

/this is to warm up for the discussion later

Someone who believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

I'm Catholic- It doesn't get more Christian than that.

I think you will find that IDW's opinion differs from yours, to a fairly large extent.


If he argues this point, I'll easily make him look like a fool, since you know- we were the first and original Christians.
 
2009-07-02 10:27:25 PM
Man On Pink Corner: Do you actually read those from the back cover forwards, or was that photo flipped?

Arabic is read right to left, so I assume that's accurate.

Rockstone: I'm Catholic- It doesn't get more Christian than that.

I almost wish I didn't have I drunk what muted so I could read his response to this comment. Hell, I'd pay money to physically be there when he reads it.

Rockstone: If he argues this point, I'll easily make him look like a fool, since you know- we were the first and original Christians.

Hard cash.

*If you're wondering why this is so funny, it's because I drunk what is of the opinion that Catholics are idolatrous satanists who may or may not have purposefully created Islam to beguile sinners and foment war.
 
2009-07-02 10:30:11 PM
ninjakirby: I almost wish I didn't have I drunk what muted so I could read his response to this comment. Hell, I'd pay money to physically be there when he reads it.

You could always un-mute just to watch...
 
2009-07-02 10:31:37 PM
maddogdelta: You could always un-mute just to watch...

I don't think I have the will-power.
 
2009-07-02 11:19:47 PM
ninjakirby: Hell, I'd pay money to physically be there when he reads it.

you know Hayward isn't that far from Salinas...

/just sayin'

ninjakirby: I don't think I have the will-power.

I find your willful ignorance disingenuous and I'm tempted to place you on ignore mute...

ninjakirby: it's because I drunk what is of the opinion that Catholics are idolatrous satanists who may or may not

Rule No. 1:

THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK FOR ME

/i've asked you nicely
//please don't make me repeat myself...

Rockstone: I'll easily make him look like a fool

perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, "brother"

Rockstone: since you know- we were the first and original Christians.

perhaps, though I've heard many-o-theories of how it was possible that severe corruption was present, even from the start

does not our very Bible warn us against false prophets-teachers, and something about an apostasy?

nevertheless even in your statement I can agree that "were" could be an accurate description...

(though OMiN has made many valid objections)

btw, from the beginning was there only one group of Christians? and they were catholic right?
 
2009-07-02 11:27:15 PM
Yawn.

I'm sure it's been said, but I'm ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that there's no way to be sure that God exists.

Accordingly, there's no uncertainty whatsoever with respect to my beliefs, and the submitter is a moron.
 
2009-07-02 11:36:53 PM
Rockstone: Someone who believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

so are all of these Christians?: Branch Davidians, Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses...so on and so forth

...and just to humor ninjakirby's troll

if we were able to gain audience with Lucifer, and we were to ask him, does he believe Jesus Christ to be the savior- who died for our sins and rose three days later, ascended into heaven- and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.

what do you suppose his response would be? So is he also a Christian?

it sounds like you are suggesting that any one who simply claims to be a Christian, is ?

I wonder if Jesus had anything to say about this...
 
2009-07-02 11:46:50 PM
JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."


It takes more faith to not believe in leprechauns.

"Leprechauns gave us magic. We chose to be rational because he lets us. Our stupid society is trying to push reason." -Albert Einstein
 
2009-07-02 11:50:46 PM
abb3w: Tartha De Tear: To answer this question, you'll need currently non-existent solid ground in ethics, meta-ethics, epistemology, semantics, theory of language, philosophy of science, and metaphysics.

Actually, a few bits of trivial math and a bit of statistical mechanics get you that. Would you like a balloon as well?


First off, you missed that I was just being funny. DON'T MISS THE FUNNY.

Second, I'd really like to read the paper to which you refer. I have a substantial background in logic - likely enough to understand the paper to which you point. Is this a Bertrand Russell thing?
 
2009-07-02 11:51:42 PM
abb3w: So, what underlying premises, and how do they enable inference from themselves to this as a conclusion?

That is an exquisitely cromulent inquiry, that shall require contemplation perhaps even beyond a fortnight or two.

/i'll try to brain and give ya a decent answer
//i actually wondered if you were going to reply
 
2009-07-02 11:53:49 PM
It says people who are less confident in there beliefs subby not people who are unsure of the existence of a diety. Agnostics are pretty confident that they don't know whether or not there is a god. I think they are referring to insecure believers. They argue because they need someone to reassure that they are believing in the right stuff.
 
2009-07-03 12:01:16 AM
maddogdelta: I think you will find that IDW's opinion differs from yours, to a fairly large extent.

perhaps, but I will try to remain as fair and open-minded as humanly possible...

and I think many here can testify that I speak with no malice and am very sincere

/though I wouldn't poll them for their opinion of my intelligence level
//I'm afraid I haven't impressed them much in that department
 
2009-07-03 12:02:47 AM
I drunk what: JQPublic: The Believer: "Leprechauns exist!"
The Atheist: "Leprechauns do not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if leprechauns exist or not and neither do you."

The Believer: "Gravity exists!"
The Atheist: "Gravity does not exist!"
The Agnostic: "I don't know if Gravity exists or not and neither do you."

/oops did I make a bad analogy?
//how silly of me...


The Believer: "Zombies exists!" *grabs shotgun*
The Atheist: "Zombies do not exist!" *grabs a copy of World War Z
The Agnostic: "I don't know if Zombies exists or not and nei-- AAGGUUHHH!!! HELP ME!! HEEEEEELL.....Braaaainsss"
 
2009-07-03 12:15:40 AM
Lagrange: Accordingly, there's no uncertainty whatsoever with respect to my beliefs, and the submitter is a moron.

No uncertainty eh? Zero? You've checked yourself have you?
 
2009-07-03 12:21:40 AM
devildog123: FlyingPig: This is news? I see self-righteous agnostics on Fark claiming that "Atheists are no different from fundies" all the time.

Not all Atheists, just the ones that are insanely arrogant and obnoxious about it, and believe that they are right, and everyone else is a stupid, ignorant, and wrong. They sound like religious fundies to me.

FTA: Overall, the studies suggested people are about twice as likely to cherry-pick information that supports their own viewpoints than to consider an opposing idea. Nearly 70 percent cherry-picked compared to about 30 percent who ponder the other side.

That sounds like they spent a whole lot of time on the Fark political page. The left wing nuts and the right wing nuts do that all the time.

/agnostic
//Libertarian
///I think I'm more open minded than most of you.


Agnosticism. It's like Atheism, except you get to think you're enlightened.

/you're blind, hypocrite.
 
2009-07-03 12:46:06 AM
I think I'll sum up the thread...

Agnostics:
www.centernegative.com

Atheists:
i201.photobucket.com

Religious:
www.licktheballs.com

When they mix together:
motivateurself.files.wordpress.com

SobrietyFighter:
static-p3.fotolia.com
 
2009-07-03 12:50:58 AM
aww you lost one

CygnusDarius: Agnostics:

try again?
 
2009-07-03 12:51:49 AM
We, I for one find it hilarious to see that Farkers are able to repeat the same driven again and again in these flame wars about the same subject and think that they are doing something worthwhile.

Funny how those that take it seriously doesn't get that:

1) they prove the whole point of "their" side having asshats.

2) they prove that they are clueless but believe that whining about their set of beliefs in a public forum is accomplishing something.

3) they provide entertainment thanks to 1) and 2)

4) they miss out, or can't understand the reality that in the end, there is only one truth.... nobody has all the answers.
 
2009-07-03 12:53:07 AM
I drunk what: aww you lost one

CygnusDarius: Agnostics:

try again?


The whole thread is pointless flaming. I think it's a waste of time to take this thread seriously from the get-go. But, that it's my personal opinion, and you're entitled to yours.

What would've been your interpretation from the agnostics, then?.
 
2009-07-03 12:56:18 AM
I drunk what: ninjakirby: Hell, I'd pay money to physically be there when he reads it.

you know Hayward isn't that far from Salinas...

/just sayin'

ninjakirby: I don't think I have the will-power.

I find your willful ignorance disingenuous and I'm tempted to place you on ignore mute...

ninjakirby: it's because I drunk what is of the opinion that Catholics are idolatrous satanists who may or may not

Rule No. 1:

THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK FOR ME

/i've asked you nicely
//please don't make me repeat myself...

Rockstone: I'll easily make him look like a fool

perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, "brother"

Rockstone: since you know- we were the first and original Christians.

perhaps, though I've heard many-o-theories of how it was possible that severe corruption was present, even from the start

does not our very Bible warn us against false prophets-teachers, and something about an apostasy?

nevertheless even in your statement I can agree that "were" could be an accurate description...

(though OMiN has made many valid objections)

btw, from the beginning was there only one group of Christians? and they were catholic right?


First of all. Yes, Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, and they were Catholic. The Church was NEVER corrupt, because god would not allow it. Also, we are the one, True, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Second of all- in my bible it states: "But I tell you, if you call your brother a "Worthless Good For Nothing", you are in danger of entering the fires of hell. And I'm not calling you a fool, I'm making you look like one. There is a difference!
 
2009-07-03 01:14:16 AM
CygnusDarius: I drunk what: aww you lost one

CygnusDarius: Agnostics:

try again?

The whole thread is pointless flaming. I think it's a waste of time to take this thread seriously from the get-go. But, that it's my personal opinion, and you're entitled to yours.

What would've been your interpretation from the agnostics, then?.


No, dude. I mean you literally lost it, that first pic just says link broken on my computer.

I found the rest to be quite amusing actually ;P

/i was just wondering what the first pic was
//that's all
 
2009-07-03 01:18:36 AM
imfallen_angel: ... nobody has all the answers.

I do!

what's the question?

/please keep the math to a minimum
 
2009-07-03 01:23:18 AM
I drunk what: No, dude. I mean you literally lost it, that first pic just says link broken on my computer.

I found the rest to be quite amusing actually ;P

/i was just wondering what the first pic was
//that's all


Wharrgarrbll, nothing else.
 
2009-07-03 01:27:20 AM
Rockstone: The Church was NEVER corrupt

ORLY?

/i'll let you think about that one for a while

Rockstone: Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church

[citation needed]

Rockstone: and they were Catholic.

[ditto]

Rockstone: because god would not allow it

so he temporarily revoked our free will?

[citation needed]

Rockstone: And I'm not calling you a fool, I'm making you look like one.

that remains to be seen

There is a difference!

I'm looking for it...

/does it require an electron-microscope?
 
2009-07-03 01:29:59 AM
CygnusDarius: Wharrgarrbll, nothing else.

so which one of those are you again?
 
Displayed 50 of 897 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report