snake321 #fundie

snake321 #fundie wrongplanet.net

(might be FSTDT.com's first ever agnostic fundie?)

Agnostics: People who are willing to admit they know nothing, because the 1st step in knowing is admitting you don't know.
Atheists: People who know everything because their al-mighty white-coat priests tell them so. It's apparently far beyond their egotistical capacity to say "I dunno". A religion, based around denying the possibility that anything could exist beyond material perception. Even though many of their white coat priests have believed in alternate universes and alternate dimensions themselves.

For once, I take a side, but not blindly. Because I don't dig sticky thinking. If agnostics do something stupid I'll call them stupid just the same. Although agnostic is a rather general term. Agnostics believe in possibilities, but beyond that, believe in nothing. Atheists just believe in science, a man-made establishment. From my experience, many, just like theocratic christians, attribute a disbelief in evolution to meaning that that person MUST believe in a religion... Just like theocratic christians believe that if your not "conservative", you MUST be "liberal".
Lets deal blows, c'mon, it's atheists vs. agnostics.

40 comments

old comment by El Guapo

I think few Athiests claim absolute knowledge that no supernatural creator exists...however, being one myself I also don't imagine that an assessment of the probability of this existence lies outside of rational argument. The fact of the matter is that I don't know if atoms exist or not, because I have never seen them. However, atomic theory explains many of the things that I can see, and therefore I ascribe it a high degree of belief.
I can't think of any natural phenomenon that requires God as an explanation. Further, if God is admitted as an explanation, then he needs to be explained as well, which is a very difficult prospect. From my point of view, God is an explanatory appendage, and a big unwieldy one at that. Although I do not know that God doesn't exist, I ascribe a high degree of belief in his nonexistence.

I don't think that this is arrogant. This is the way that rational people generally assess proposals and assign belief to them

old comment by David B.

Strange that the "white-coat priests" are quite clear that there's a lot they don't know.

There are an infinite number of things it is not possible to prove the non-existence of, but in the absence of any compelling evidence or argument for them, I do not then automatically acknowledge their existence, or act as though it is a meaningful possibility.

Science gives probable, meaningful and useful answers to the problems it has conquered, and part of the reason for this is that it does not accept there are causes for things that it can't describe. Science would be quite willing to accept "underpants gnomes" as the cause of some phenomena if there were (a) evidence to that effect, and (b) a reliable way of determining if that is true. If there are things beyond material perception, they are unlikely to ever be discovered or described by science; ask any theist, deist or animist scientist and they're usually happy enough to admit that. Which brings me to another point.

Neither is science synonymous with atheism, or vice versa.

There are quite a lot of anti-science atheists, and many more non-atheist scientists. This is exactly the 'theocratic christian' error snake321 decries in his next paragraph, if you don't believe in God you must believe in science.

"If agnostics do something stupid I'll call them stupid"

Me too, stupid.

old comment by

Atheists: People who know everything because their al-mighty white-coat priests tell them so. A religion, based around denying the possibility that anything could exist beyond material perception.

Actually, I'm an atheist simply because I do not believe in things that have not been proven to be real. I certainly, believe it's possible a higher power could exist, but I also believe it's 'possible' a teacup could be orbitting the sun. Prove either to me and I'll of course change my beliefs on each matter.

Even though many of their white coat priests have believed in alternate universes and alternate dimensions themselves.

Again, I also believe that such things are 'possible,' but I do not believe that they exist as the evidence for them just isn't there. Despite what you may think, I do not base my beliefs around whatever certain people put forward. Rather, I base them on careful investigation of reliable evidence.

If agnostics do something stupid I'll call them stupid just the same.

You need to start with yourself.

old comment by tracer

Lucilius wrote:

"Not conservative, but not liberal? I don't think this dude has any clue what he's talking about, on any level."

I have to call you out on this one.

The political spectrum is NOT one-dimensional. It is possible -- in fact, surprisingly common -- for someone to agree with a Conservative platform on some issues and to agree with a Liberal platform on some others.

Where on the left-right spectrum do you put the person who wants to abolish all laws against consensual sex, but at the same time wants to abolish the Minimum Wage law? Conservative? No. Liberal? No. Moderate? Hell no. Neither label is appropriate for such a person.

snake321 is right on this account. If you're not conservative, it is NOT necessarily true that you are liberal.

old comment by Lithp

Agnostics: People who are willing to admit they know nothing, because the 1st step in knowing is admitting you don't know.

Good motto.

Atheists: People who know everything because their al-mighty white-coat priests tell them so. It's apparently far beyond their egotistical capacity to say "I dunno".

Let me ask you something: Would you ever say, "I don't THINK Santa Claus exists, but I can't DISPROVE him, so I won't say one way or the other"?

A religion, based around denying the possibility that anything could exist beyond material perception.

Again, I always found the agnostic position kind of sily, because to maintain it, you wouldn't be able to deny the invisible pink unicorn or the flying spaghetti monster, eve though those are just smartass quips made by atheists to compare God to.

Even though many of their white coat priests have believed in alternate universes and alternate dimensions themselves.

Things that have some mathematical basis behind them, mind you.

For once, I take a side, but not blindly. Because I don't dig sticky thinking. If agnostics do something stupid I'll call them stupid just the same.

'Cause I TOTALLY never tell atheists they're wrong. RIGHT.

Although agnostic is a rather general term. Agnostics believe in possibilities, but beyond that, believe in nothing. Atheists just believe in science, a man-made establishment.

Religion doesn't demonstrate its usefulness and accuracy, and nothing is...well, nothing. And if scientists didn't believe in possibilities, they wouldn't invent anything. What kind of garbage are you spewing here?

From my experience, many, just like theocratic christians, attribute a disbelief in evolution to meaning that that person MUST believe in a religion... Just like theocratic christians believe that if your not "conservative", you MUST be "liberal".

Because that's the common pattern? Even so, I never make my presumptions out to be fact, I simply ask, "Are you religious?"

Lets deal blows, c'mon, it's atheists vs. agnostics.

No, damnit! It's bad enough that the Fundies think we're at war with them!

(You ARE on the wrong planet.)