The best evidence that anything other than theism is fucking retarded

You are retarded

>>8526728
Yeah? Take your best shot, champ

>>8526725
You're implying there is any evidence, of any kind, to support that claim. Maybe you should offer some.

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

File: 1208642135637.jpg (63KB, 380x247px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 380x247px

>>8526828
¬believe(x) ≠ believe(¬x), motherfucker

There is not evidence. I could give logical proofs for God, but in reality you can't do more than speculate on why reality is ordered the way it is. Positive atheism does require as much faith as theism though (by "atheism" I mean an idea that some variable is behind reality, but just that it is not God--since we can't know the probabilities, there is no position here that is more probable than any other). Agnosticism is the most rational position, but if we applied it to its most thorough lengths, we couldn't function, so it's just a question of how much faith one will accept to get through life.

>>8526852
>Agnosticism is the most rational position, but if we applied it to its most thorough lengths, we couldn't function,
>we couldn't function,

why?

>>8526860
not him, but to refuse to make a choice in the absence of knowing the result of your choice would result in paralysis

>>8526860
Because causation, for instance, is based totally on faith. Correlation does not equal causation, and in fact thinking it does is what gets people like investors rekt, they see something repeat a thousand times, then assume that means it is a causal pattern, and invest a lot of money in it, and then something happens them assume was one-in-a-million and destroys them, when in fact they have no clue what the odds are. This was discussed a lot in Nassim Taleb's work (his investment strategy was to put money on what was considered virtually impossible--this meant he'd lose money most of the time, but when something considered not in line with market causation happens, investors always flip out and liquidate their positions, so he profited immensely when that eventually happened in the 1980's, and became an independent million based on that one freak event).

>>8526921
independent millionaire*

>>8526837
>believes he can set up an identity between propositions
>believes he can negate individuals

Le Ironique Man

Also, you're an idiot (among many, many other idiots) if you believe that non-belief in something is not equal to belief in the negation of that something. Your non-belief is just a suppressed belief, especially if there's a large amount of evidence that that something couldn't exist. By the evidence you are forced, if you are an honest man, to believe that it probably doesn't exist.

This is pseudo-distinction that needs to die out.

File: 1218788980686.png (198KB, 285x323px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 285x323px

>>8526933
BUT SUPPOSE I TOLD YOU THAT YOU WERE THE IDIOT??

???

Atheism simply means the lack of belief in a god or gods. (A)gnosticism deals with the knowledge part. (A)gnostic is no more than an adjective to go along with theism/atheism.

"Agnosticism" as commonly used by morons like you is simply atheism, as it simply means lack of belief.

Realise the context, and you'll find that even the most pop culture-notorious atheists will happily admit to being agnostic atheists.

Hence: ¬believe(x) ≠ believe(¬x)

>>8527262

Agnostic theism is fascinating to me. I can't claim to be an agnostic theist, but the idea that you can only truly have faith where there is no direct knowledge, and can only demonstrate faith where there is a possibility that that faith will go unrewarded, is compelling.