>>22018329 (lb)
>The atheists/pagans have been taking some big hits lately
Can't speak for the Pagans, but as an Atheist I'm very curious what "big hits" we've taken recently?
>Atheist or agnostic?
Atheist.
Agnostic is a cop-out. "I believe there is a God, I just don't know which one"…
Atheists living in a predominantly religious area will often call themselves Agnostic just to appease the cultish people.
No I am unconvinced that there is a God.
>Atheism says NO god.
>Agnostic means you're not sure
I described it pretty clearly.
Agnostic means you believe there is a God, you are just undecided on which one.
Atheist means that you don't believe there is a God.
I don't believe there is a God, i.e. I'm Atheist.
>an atheist is convinced that there IS NO God
Just as convinced as you are in there being a God, yes.
>atheists believe there can not be
There could absolutely be a God.
I could be absolutely be wrong.
I just don't think I am. That's what makes me Atheist.
Is the English language really that hard for you people?
>Atheists state unequivocally that there is not.
Some might, they are idiots.
Just as religion people stating as fact that there is a God are idiots.
I love that I asked a specific question, but instead of answering my question we are now discussing my brand of Atheism.
Let's try again:
>The atheists/pagans have been taking some big hits lately
Can't speak for the Pagans, but as an Atheist I'm very curious what "big hits" we've taken recently?
It's kind of frightening that you need a book to tell you not to rape…
It's clear that you haven't spoken to many Atheists…
>i'm not the one who is uncertain
I'm not uncertain, I have faith in my belief that there is no God
Sure buddy
And I reject the idea that there is a God. How am I not an Atheist
>Try again, I believe in you
>Boy, would you be wrong.
I'll take your word for it. In that case, the Atheists you've been talking to were idiots.
We are not a monolith.
Unlike your religion, Atheism doesn't have rules about what is allowed to believe, except for the question of the existence of a God.
>I just don't think I am. That's what makes me Atheist.
I don't think I am wrong in my rejection of a God, is exactly what I said.
I just acknowledged the possibility of me being wrong. As you should.
>You by definition are agnostic.
I am still not.
I reject the idea of the existence of a God. How many times do I have to repeat it?
I DONT BELIEVE THERE IS A GOD.
Not some mumbo jumbo about it being impossible to know.
As I started out saying - Agnostic is a cop-out. Because faith is not about knowledge in the first place. No one "knows", if you knew you wouldn't need faith.
You have faith there is a God. I reject the mere notion that a God exists and has seen no evidence that has even made me wonder if a God could be possible.
Can I make it more clear to you?
>I can be, but I'm not.
Is your faith.
I have faith that I am not wrong.
As I said to another anon.
>I am as convinced that there is no God as you are that there is.
We can both be wrong, you have faith that you are not. I have faith that I am not.
>The very fact you acknowledge there COULD be makes you an agnostic, not an atheist.
Why is it so important to you what term I use. I have now, in multiple ways explained my position. The label is useless at this point.
I wish… kek
>Any chimps still in your family.
Not sure actually. kek
Not sure what that would prove or disprove either?
And which one of those has I told you repeatedly that I adhere to?
You really are retarded aren't you?
I am. I am Atheist.
No I did not. I'm sorry that you are too retarded to understand the difference between faith and knowledge. But I really can't be bothered anymore. Fuck off
-read >>22018692:
>I'm sorry that you are too retarded to understand the difference between faith and knowledge.
First of, being Atheist doesn't mean I have to believe in Evolution.
Saying that, I do tend to think evolution best describes our current understanding of how species came to be. Especially since the links can be shown via DNA.
And your description of it already tells me that you don't understand it at all, calling it "accidental".
It's not accidental. It's driven by natural selection.
Finally, we didn't evolve from Chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees aren't less "evolved" humans.
We share a common ancestor.
>Who does the selecting,
Nature…
Hence "natural" selection.
It's pretty simple actually. The dead doesn't get selected.
>If something is more useful to a creature, it stays, if it is not more useful it tends to go away.
You're not wrong, but your way of saying it is.
It's not that something intelligently thinks "nah… I don't need 3 eyes".
It's more that those with 3 eyes die more often and multiply less.
(Macro example, for examples sake. Increments aren't that large.)
Proto-humans.
Homo heidelbergensis
If you're druid, I guess.
So I guess the Religiotard last bread that confidently claimed that Atheists had taken recent hits was just wishing out loud. Because when asked, twice, all you had was to question my claim of being atheist, as if that had anything to do with my question.
And then argue evolution, which again has nothing to do with Atheism or my question.
You religiotards are just like the wokies you despise :D
I didn't pick my dad. Did you?