Do you have the brainpower to understand this?

It had to be a woman you were arguing with.

I'm impressed with your patience. After the second time of stating the same thing, I there would be a missing report filed and a six-foot pit dug in the woods somewhere and a body burried in it.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Context, please.

I'll take a stab in the dark here: you're B and A is a woman. Correct?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't want to go on a tangent here, but I'll just post this link and let you get back on topic.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A woman always gets the last word in an argument. Anything a man says after she has finished talking is a new argument.

 

what about when she dies before saying anything?

 

LOL, that's been known to happen. Huh, LixLuke?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

:bugeye: ...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

oh so you teamed up...I see...

 

They say electro-convulsive therapy does wonders...

Go get some.

 

Whats not to understand ? Hit him over the head with a blunt object.. that will shut him up

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

quote from wiki

Agnosticism (from the Greek "a," meaning "without," and Gnosticism or "gnosis," meaning knowledge) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.


peace.

 

Person A has been on a course teaching self-assertion.
Either that or a self-help book.
It's called the stuck-record response.
It's supposed to be a good way of getting to the root of problems.
Sounds bloody annoying.
Hopefully the brainwashing will eventually wear off and the person will return to normal.

 

I didn't disagree with anything, but rather posted the link to help people understand the differences. Thanks for being redundant, though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i didnt disagree with anything, but rather posted a quote from wikipedia to help people understand the difference.

no need to thank me.


peace.

 

Different people have different opinions no what the definition of the term, "Atheism" should be. Xev pulling out some so called, "official" definition from a book. SOLIDUS linking to what is probably the worst source online to get info about atheism, agnosticism, and other such information.

The point is that there are 2 different types of people that have 2 different views on how the term "atheism" should be defined. The first time is the traditional who defines the term acording to the traditional definition. Then there is the contemporary type who have been spending way too much time online. The contemporary type define atheism according to what they read on a really idiotic website called, infedels.

Traditional definition: We believe that the term "atheism" should be defined as the position that there is no God.

Contemporary definition: We believe that the term "atheism" should be definied as the position that does not believe there is a God while not necessarily believing that there is no God. The contemporary type go on to use terms as strong, weak, etc.

I find the contemporary definition to be sad and absurd for many reasons. What the Tradiotional type regard as the proper use of the term "atheism" is what the contemporary type define as "strong atheism". This is so wack it's not even funny. One argument of the contemporary definition is that an atheist is open to the possibility that there is a God. DUH!!!!. If an atheist as definited by the traditional definition (strong atheist for contemporaries) proclaim that there is no such thing as God, this does completely absolutely does not imply that they are not open to the possibility that there is a God. Anybody intellect with any particular belief is open to the possibility that they can be wrong. If they find reasonable evidence proving them wrong, they will gladly admit they were wrong, and embrace the truth.

Any belief/opinion anybody has about a fact is based on a conclusion they arrived at according to information they received. Everything you know is a conclusion you came to. You came to the conclusion the earth revolves around the sun based on information you received. If I asked you if the earth revolves around the sun or if the sun revolves around the earth. You would probably say that based on all the information you know about the subject, you would take the position that the earth revolves around the sun.


Contemporaties claim that anybody that does not fall under theism falls under atheism in one way or another. The "A" in atheism ('without') does mean a belief in "God without" meaning a belief that there is no God. Contemporaries consider the the "A" (without) to mean without theism which means without the belief in God. This is just another prime example of contemporary idiodicy.

Cotemporaries basically took one look at the word "Atheism" Then they said, well theism is the belief in God. Atheism must be without theism. This is equivalent to without the belief in God. DUMB!!!! The fact of the matter is this: An "ism" is a belief. Theism and Atheism are both isms. The "A" in atheism is not meant to imply "without" theism. It is meant to imply an "ism" of without God. In other words, atheism is the direct antithesis of theism. While the 'ism' of 'theism' holds the belief of "with God", the 'ism' of 'atheism' holds "withuot God".


Considering the contemporary interpretation (or misinterpretation) that "A" means without belief in God" The contemporary definition came about from nothing more than Atheists wanting to claim that they have no opinion on religious matters.
Consider the following:
1. "God does not exist." -> Atheist.
2. "I have no opinion on the existence of God or any related matters. I abstain from such nonsense." -> Atheist.
As seen, the contemporaries found that there seemed to be 2 types of atheists. Because they never graduated kindergarten, they created terms to separate them. 1 is strong atheism. 2 is weak atheism. Ah we can all relax.

Unfortunately, as soon as we get a brain, we realize that #2 is either not an atheist or a atheist in denial trying supress their deep down belief that there is no such things as God.


Another reason I disregard the contemporary definition is because it is so totally blitheringly flawed. If we succumb to this maroonic definition we might as well claim that everybody is an atheist. You believe that Jesus is God? Well if you do not believe that the flying spaghetti monster is God, you are an atheist. If the contemporary definition is used, everybody is an atheist one way or another. Therefore, it's a flawed definition. I agree with the traditional definition.

Another HUGE flaw is that they consider people who have never even been exposed to the concept of God to be atheist. "Duh well this person never been exposed to the concept of Gawrd. This person aint no theist. He must be an athiest." What total stupid crap. AN ISM IMPLIES A POSITION. This person from the woods is being called an athiest even though he has never taken up a position on the matter. "A" is does not imply the lack of the position that God exists. "A" implies the position in the lack of the existence of God. In order to be labled under an "ism" There must be a position. There is no such thing as an "ism" in whic there is a lack of position.

When it comes to "ism"s, each person might have a list of isms they abide by:
Idealism
Theism
Capitalism
Racism

What if this person does not abide by all of the millions of other isms out there? Does he have to put "A" on all of those isms? I have an opinion on the ideals of Communism. I'm an acommunist. Get real. Any "ism" a person does not hold simply is not on the list. If a person does not hold "theism", you are not going to put an "a" on the "theism" that is on the list. You simply remove the "theism" from the list.


TRADITIONAL:
"God does not exist" -> Atheism.
"I have no opinion on the existence of God or any related matters" -> Not atheism. Has not taken up either "ism" of theism or atheism. Neither can go on his list of personal isms.
"I have never been exposed to the concept of God" -> Not atheism. Possibly raised by wolves in the middle of a deserted island on Mars.
"I do not know if God does or does not exist. Man cannot and will not ever know if God does or does not exist." -> Agnosticism. The second part "Man cannot and will not ever know if God does or does not exist" is an active position which is the "ism" of agnosticism. The first part, "I do not know if God does or does not exist" is simply extra information that happens to be an inevitable byproduct of the actual ism of agnosticism. But the second part has nothing to do with what makes "agnosticism" and "ism".
"I do not know if God does or does not exist. I do not include the position that man cannot and will not ever know if God does or does not exist." -> Not atheism. Not agnosticism. In order to fall under an "ism", you have to take up a position. "I know such and such".


The contemporary definition of "atheism" is nothing but a retarded internet meme. Prevalated all around the internet mainly by the infedels website. It is so powerful infact that many sites all over the internet have fallen under the stupidity of taking that total load of nonsense dead serious. That infeldel site is totally misleading. It's giving everybody all over the internet a warped definition for atheism and other related terms. Consider even Sciforums religion terms. Even Sciforums has fallen for that total load of misinformation, and embraced it as if it has any sort of validity. If you want a real understandign of atheism, I suggest you stay away from that idiotic infedels website. It is anything but an official source on how atheism should be defined.

 

Im am ready to believe in God as soon as convincing evidence is presented, until then i refuse to belief in God.
Now, whats so difficult about that ??

 

All atheists are ready to believe in God as soon as convincing evidence is presented. Until then, God is as real as the flying spaghtti monster. In other words God does not exist. Atheism.

 

Im not saying God doesnt exist, however, i am extremely sceptic about the possibility of his existence.

 

Setting aside the sexism, and all, how do you know it's a woman? I've encountered males that do the same thing. It's like some sort of psychotic broken record.

PERSON A: Well why do you always get angry and upset when we talk.
PERSON B: I'll try to make this as simple as possible. (Embarking on the logical trap of circular reasoning.) The reason I get upset and pissed off is because everytime I tell you the reason I get upset, you don't listen, and ask me why I get upset. That is the reason I get upset. I get upset because it is so annoying that I have to keep telling you over and over again that the reason I get upset is because I have to keep telling you over and over again that the reason I get upset is because I have to keep telling you over and over again that the reason I get upset is because I have to keep telling you over and over again that the reason I get upset is because I have to keep telling you over and over again that the reason I get upset is because I have to keep telling you over and over again that the reason I get upset is because I have to keep telling you over and over again (continues to eternity). PERSON B eventually goes insane and catatonic.