annoyatron: tumbleweed and crickets

I see we are having a religious debate on Tumblr

annapie:

annoyatron:

I’m already bored and will continue to hand out beer and benzos until you guys settle the fuck down and play some Brutal Legend with me instead of perpetuating this inane nonsense. We can discuss religion and politics ad nauseum.

For the reference, here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Atheism:

Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no deities.^[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities exist.^[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of belief that any deities exist.^[3]

As such, I would consider it a dogmatic belief system. You basically say that “Whatever deity somebody else believes in, I don’t believe in.” That’s a silly — not to mention narrow-minded — approach. Maybe some of you mean to say that you are Agnostic?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.^[1] Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief.

Or maybe you are more along my lines: I don’t give a fuck about religion!

Your first mistake is thinking that atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive and they simply are not.

Of course they are mutually exclusive. You can’t NOT BELIEVE IN DEITIES and then at the same time say you RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE IN SAID DEITIES IF GIVEN PROOF. That’s an Exclusive OR from a logical standpoint.