Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

[Bonestorm]

I am calling them social liberals. TJ was not married to, but lived with a black woman with who he fathered children.

He was a slaveowner, Jarod. He wasn't fucking Tom Willis.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No, it was not a jumbled mess.

Yes moron, it was, you contradicted yourself and then started rambling with incorrect definitions for terms. I spelled it out for you with the ACTUAL definitions to the words. Surely you didn't miss that post?

As you are dimwit I can only guess you are having trouble with my allowance for a one god or many Gods. So I will dumb it down for you.

No moron, whether you say one god, gods, all powerful beings etc... it matters not, you are still wrong in how you are defining atheism.

Again, it is not accurate to say that an atheist believes that God does not exist.

Again moron,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It is accurate to say that an atheist does not believe that God exists. Absence of belief in God is not the same as belief in the absence of God.

Again, you are an idiot. The absence of a belief in God is AGNOSTIC. The belief in the absence of God is ATHEIST.

I am not interested in your cowardly attempts to provide cover for you in-group, change the subject and ignore the science on evolution.

you are interested in proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a fucking idiot.

nowhere have I ignored the science of evolution you moron. But do show us who the true coward is by running away from your earlier bullshit.

Pmp claims he accepts that humans are getting taller due to evolution. But then he turns around and argues that acceptance of evolution implies a rejection of creation. So I am sorry, your simple statement does not mean much to me. You don't like to discuss this subject and you always try to change it to AGW, abortion or ad homs against those that accept and support the science on evolution.

No moron, you are the one that brought those topics into this thread.

I am not an absolutist.

yes, you are... on top of it, you are also a moron... a fact you have proven time and again on this thread.

 

[Timshel]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity


see above... you directly contradict yourself...hence your argument was a jumbled mess.



The above bolded is agnostic, not atheistic. The underlined second portion is atheism.

ag·nos·tic

noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\ : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

I did not contradict myself. You are obviously an idiot that cannot grasp the difference.

Honestly, I don't care what Merriam Webster says. But, the first definition agrees with what I said. Maybe you should look up disbelief.

Many atheists have explained to you and others repeatedly on these boards that the definitions are not adequate and that they conflate different topics. You want to talk about arrogant? It is arrogant for you to refer to a dictionary to tell me what I and others believe even though I an others have told you, you are wrong. It is also nothing more than arguing semantics.

Agnostic/gnostic is specifically about knowledge while atheism/theism is about belief in God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Smith, George H (1979). Atheism: The Case Against God. p. 10-11. "Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being. The term "agnostic" does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic."

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not relevant. There is no arrogance in basing your beliefs on the best available evidence.

The coward (sf) thinks that by pretending that theism and atheism are equivalent that he can still manage to seem erudite without offending believers, as long as he can change the subject whenever the topic is brought up to agw, abortion or some other issue where he pretends the science supports their shared ideas. His strategy is to ignore it. He is more worried about avoiding offense than error.

It is not accurate to say that atheists believe that god(s) does/do not exist(s). Rather, an atheist does not believe god(s) exist(s). It is an absence of belief in god(s) not a belief in the absence of god(s). We can substitute "amorepowerfulbeings" for "atheist" and "more powerful being" for "god(s)" and the statements hold true.

The coward, is pretending that "more powerful being" is essentially the same as god(s) and using his apparently vast knowledge of Star Trek philosophy to argue that magic is the same as something we don't understand to avoid offense again. He is playing a game of semantics.

if you don't want people discussing the other issues, then perhaps you shouldn't comment on their positions on those issues, especially when you are so glaringly wrong.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I did not contradict myself. You are obviously an idiot that cannot grasp the difference.

Honestly, I don't care what Merriam Webster says. But, the first definition agrees with what I said. Maybe you should look up disbelief.

Many atheists have explained to you and others repeatedly on these boards that the definitions are not adequate and that they conflate different topics. You want to talk about arrogant? It is arrogant for you to refer to a dictionary to tell me what I and others believe even though I an others have told you, you are wrong. It is also nothing more than arguing semantics.

LMAO... so you proclaim yourself an atheist, then pretend an atheist is actually agnostic... ok string... you are making perfect sense.

I am not arguing semantics. Atheism and Agnosticism are two completely different things. YOU are conflating the two.

Agnostic/gnostic is specifically about knowledge while atheism/theism is about belief in God.

Yes, it is about the knowledge. The knowledge that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Thus an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in God.

But good to see you finally admit that theism and atheism are the same... both about their belief in God.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I did not contradict myself. You are obviously an idiot that cannot grasp the difference.

Honestly, I don't care what Merriam Webster says. But, the first definition agrees with what I said. Maybe you should look up disbelief.

Perhaps you should have looked it up...

dis·be·lief
ˌdisbəˈlēf/
noun
noun: disbelief
1.
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

 

[Timshel]

Again, you are an idiot. The absence of a belief in God is AGNOSTIC. The belief in the absence of God is ATHEIST.

Arrogant and cowardly moron, what does not gnostic mean?

Gnostic/agnostic does not mean a belief or absence of belief in God. But if that is the way you want to use it, go for it. It's clearly not what I mean and your definition has no bearing on what I believe. You can play your stupid semantic tricks all you like it has no effect on what I actually believe or what I have argued.

 

[Timshel]

Perhaps you should have looked it up...

dis·be·lief
ˌdisbəˈlēf/
noun
noun: disbelief
1.
inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

That's right, pusillanimous pinhead. So then atheism under the first definition could be said to mean "a refusal to accept as true or real the existence of a deity." Or the absence of belief in the existence of a deity.

 

[Timshel]

LMAO... so you proclaim yourself an atheist, then pretend an atheist is actually agnostic... ok string... you are making perfect sense.

I am not arguing semantics. Atheism and Agnosticism are two completely different things. YOU are conflating the two.

Yes, it is about the knowledge. The knowledge that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Thus an agnostic neither believes nor disbelieves in God.

But good to see you finally admit that theism and atheism are the same... both about their belief in God.

I admitted to no such thing.

Most atheists are NOT gnostic atheists. Your definition has NO authority, dumbfuck. It does not affect the reality of what others believe.

You are absolutely arguing semantics. You are NOT discussing the material facts about what I or others believe but rather you are arguing the definition. You can call me agnostic if you like, but I don't like that label because I think it's for cowards like you. You can't tell me I claim to be certain that a deity does not exists. You don't have anything to support that claim.

No, an agnostic means without knowledge. It does not mean without belief in a deity.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Arrogant and cowardly moron, what does not gnostic mean?

You continue calling me a moron, yet it is you that continually is proven to be retarded. Comical.

Gnostic/agnostic does not mean a belief or absence of belief in God. But if that is the way you want to use it, go for it. It's clearly not what I mean and your definition has no bearing on what I believe. You can play your stupid semantic tricks all you like it has no effect on what I actually believe or what I have argued.

Agnostic absolutely means an absence of belief in God. An agnostic neither believes (theism) nor disbelieves (atheism)... hence an absence of belief either way. That is a fact. It is not semantics, it is using words for what they ACTUALLY mean... not what YOU want them to mean.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I admitted to no such thing.

Most atheists are NOT gnostic atheists. Your definition has NO authority, dumbfuck. It does not affect the reality of what others believe.

You are absolutely arguing semantics. You are NOT discussing the material facts about what I or others believe but rather you are arguing the definition. You can call me agnostic if you like, but I don't like that label because I think it's for cowards like you. You can't tell me I claim to be certain that a deity does not exists. You don't have anything to support that claim.

No, an agnostic means without knowledge. It does not mean without belief in a deity.

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics
1.
a 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.

[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD]

you keep clinging to the first part of the definition and avoiding the last... because it is YOU that wishes to make things mean what they do not in order to suit your lunacy.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Timshel]

I tend to define those who insist on the agnostic label as someone who argues that belief in the existence of a deity is equivalent to the lack of belief in the existence of a deity. A coward, like you.

Dawkins defines it on a scale of 1 (certain that God exist) to 7 (certain that God does not exist) as being a 4, and by God he does not mean "more powerful beings" but what theists mean when they use the word.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I tend to define those who insist on the agnostic label as someone who argues that belief in the existence of a deity is equivalent to the lack of belief in the existence of a deity. A coward, like you.

awww, you poor little thing... are you embarrassed now? Sorry that the words ACTUAL definitions made you look retarded, but you are what you are.

But do keep calling me a coward... we know it makes you feel better about your inadequate hypocritical life.

 

[Timshel]

ag·nos·tic
agˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics
1.
a 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.

[TABLE="class: vk_tbl vk_gy"]
[TR]
[TD]

you keep clinging to the first part of the definition and avoiding the last... because it is YOU that wishes to make things mean what they do not in order to suit your lunacy.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The second part contradicts your previous statements. What do you think is the difference between the absence of belief and disbelief?

You are just making a jumbled mess of this with your PURELY semantic arguments. I am done. I don't give a fuck what you think the definitions mean. I have told you clearly and without equivocation what I mean and I know for a fact that most atheists agree. I don't know ANY atheists that claim to be absolutely certain that a deity does not exist. I don't claim to know that a deity does not exist and it is not that I believe that a deity does not exist. I simply don't believe that a deity exists. I see no more reason to entertain the notion than I do Russell's teapot.

 

[Canceled.2014.2]

I tend to define those who insist on the agnostic label as someone who argues that belief in the existence of a deity is equivalent to the lack of belief in the existence of a deity. A coward, like you.

Dawkins defines it on a scale of 1 (certain that God exist) to 7 (certain that God does not exist) as being a 4, and by God he does not mean "more powerful beings" but what theists mean when they use the word.

The agnostic label can mean a lot of things....mostly that someone is not traditionally religious and that the "jury is still out" in a manor of speaking. Methinks even atheists and agnostics have trouble with an exact definition. This whole discussion is starting to become circular and bring more heat than light.

 

[Timshel]

awww, you poor little thing... are you embarrassed now? Sorry that the words ACTUAL definitions made you look retarded, but you are what you are.

But do keep calling me a coward... we know it makes you feel better about your inadequate hypocritical life.

You have only embarrassed yourself by showing that you have no clue what a semantic argument is or much about anything else. You are a stupid fuck who rejects science except when you are too much of coward to stand up for it.

 

[Timshel]

The agnostic label can mean a lot of things....mostly that someone is not traditionally religious and that the "jury is still out" in a manor of speaking. Methinks even atheists and agnostics have trouble with an exact definition. This whole discussion is starting to become circular and bring more heat than light.

Which is why I don't really care to argue semantics. I have stated clearly that I do not claim any certainty about the existence of a deity. If you want to call that agnostic, that's okay with me though I will not use that label.

SF only has his semantics. His main objective was to remove the focus from the fact that Republicans reject evolution and to attack those who support science which is a consistent theme of his.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

One could believe we were CREATED by random silly shit.

and would that be an intelligent designer?......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Simply calling something stupid does not add any creditability to your argument. That's the main thing I wish Conservatives on this board would learn.

lol..... you ARE aware of who started this thread and why, I assume?......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You are a liar.

lol.....and dumbfuck Jarod "thanked" you after what he said in the previous post.....you children are priceless.....