Bill Maher's Twitter jihad against Tim Tebow continues

"Hoot", "Dude"?. Aren't these 6th grader words?  Remember little boy Tyler, it's a school night. Do your homework and get to bed early. Do you still suck on your Momma's breast for milk?

hahaha you're a hoot!

"You are FAR from any type of educated or experienced voice to be on a comment board like this. "

I'll leave you with a classic internet quote "arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded"

You're calling this dude a loser and a negro........ but you're the one pathetically sitting on your computer calling people names on a random blog website. Kim, you're in the same boat as him if you're going to call him a loser for posting here.

If you're over the age of 12 - shame on you, because age alone doesn't make someone an adult, and you've proven that you're incapable of behaving as one.

"You're an idiot. Cheers. "

And you cheer for idiocy?  Not much of a surprise there...

You're an idiot. Cheers.

You don't know what you are talking about and you being so confident in your wrongness suggests I should find entertainment elsewhere. Sorry.

Unlike that disingenuous wimp BlackWallStreet, I'm not going to side with Nathan, who's views conflict with mine, just because he's decided to take to task my little online nemesis BWS...  BWS and I can agree on one thing, atheism and agnosticm are not the same.  He said they are also not 'mutually exclusive' but that's because BWS doesn't know what the term 'mutually exclusive' means.  It means not the same, at all. 

I love it when people inject their own snide remarks, judging peoples beliefs, only to expect everyone else to respect their own opinions and beliefs.

How is it that I don't know what I am talking about? Because you said so, and you are the authority on what is and isn't factual? If you are going to fact check me, at least say more than "your wrong, I'm right."

"Atheism/agnosticism don't answer the same question. One can be both -- and the vast majority of atheists are indeed both."

Talk about not knowing shit, you just gave a perfect example someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. Agnosticism does not attempt to answer any questions at all, which is why agnostics take the stance of "I don't know, neither do you or anyone else, because it is impossible to know the answer at this point." That is much different from atheism, which asserts a definitive answer to the question of the existence of a god or creator. People can be a form of agnostic atheist, where they ultimately hold on to the idea that it is impossible to know the answer, while strongly drifting towards the conclusion that there is no god. But still, it is not the same as agnostic or atheist.

Many people who often refer to themselves as "atheists" are actually agnostic and simply don't understand the difference yet. This does not mean they are both atheist and agnostic. You cannot really be both, in the sense that someone who identifies as atheist cannot also believe it is impossible to know the answer for sure. That would be an agnostic atheist, NOT an atheist. What you are suggesting, that the two terms can mean the same thing, is not exactly true. Someone who is atheist is not the same as someone who agnostic atheist. You need to check your own facts before you start telling me that I am wrong and don't know what I am talking about.

So please don't come around me spreading your own brand of snarky bullshit while accusing me of spreading my own. The difference between my comments and yours is that I am only trying to explain, while you are only here to harass and be a snide little prick who thinks he knows more than everyone else in the world.

penn jillette is a reprobate dumbshit.

Eric said:

"The jinkster seems pissed off. "

Is it possible to be whimsically pissed off?  I'm sure you wish I were pissed off because then I'd probably get flustered and start contradicting myself and veering away from coherency like our old pal BWS!

I said:

"Actually I think most of them (scientists) would probably agree with me if they read this thread. "  Then again, I may be giving too much credit to scientists.  Afterall, I heard that most of them believe there is credible evdience for anthropogenic global-warming.  So even those brainy science guys aren't immune to groupthink and peer pressure.  In fact, in their geeky upbringing they probably never had to deal with peer pressure, to smoke, or do drugs.  So they have no experience in how to resist it as adults...

BWSmarmy said:

"He is comfortable making personal attacks on someone who disagrees with him and his beliefs about god. He makes generalizations and assumptions that are often nothing but lies meant to hurt and offend. He thinks that because we don't agree with every word he says, that we are less human or less worthy than he is...He can offer zero evidence for his theory that there is no god or creator, yet he expects us to immediately buy into it and follow him like they followed Jesus or something."

Oh c'mon BWS, you're the only person loopy enough to have hit the Like button on that bizarre spew of vindictiveness!  Although I prefer not to pick on your voluminous ad hominem attacks since they are irrelevent, just to put to rest the slander you've issued, I'd like to state for the record that I haven't said anything remotely resembling expecting anyone to follow me like they followed Jebus, and I also have not suggested that anyone I've been debating with here is "less human" than I am, but directly after accusing me of that, you do exactly what you accuse me of, by stating:

" People like him are a disgrace to the entire human race. "

Yes, how dare I argue effectively and poignantly against the illustrious BlackWallStreet10mm...  the nerve of me!  Guards, off with my head!

BWS said:

" There is not one scientist or student of science in this world that would ever hold or present the opinions that you forced on me here today"

Actually I think most of them would probably agree with me if they read this thread.  I think they'd also agree that I haven't "forced" anything on you, any more than you have forced anything on me.  Your language has been far more pejorative, but I just consider that to be noise caused by your frustration, which I ignore and only quote and respond to your most thoughtful statements (and it's credible to refer to any of your statements as particularly thoughtful).

I think that what you're feeling is defeat, and that is what is making you feel like I've 'forced' my viewpoint on you.  I wouldn't exactly expect someone to feel wonderful after his entire concept of the universe has been thoroughly refuted.  I would expect that person to be angry and frustrated and feel like something has been forced on him...  but I would hope that in time you will heal, and be better and smarter from this experience.

Oh, and according to the latest science, extra-terrestrial life probably exists.  Probably even intelligent life.  But also, according to the latest science, we will never come in contact with extra-terrestrials.  And according to the latest science, god probably doesn't exist, but remember, science can't make any definitive claims on that matter, which is why we turn to philosophy, and, as I've demonstrated, a product of philosophy called Informal Logic.

BWS said:  "Perhaps you could tell me why we are here, why we exist? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is there extraterrestrial life out there in the universe? Since you claim to know the answer to such a profound question as whether or not god exists, I figured you might know all the other important questions to the meaning of life and our existence. "

This is how cult leaders come about... after I refute your nonsense and you wind up utterly confused, you assume I must be a genius who has all the answers to life, the universe, and everything.  My understanding of the universe is not based on vanity, it's based on confidence.  I think yours is based on vanity and a lack of confidence.

By the way, I'd just like to clarify for anyone besides BWS who might be reading this...

Unlike BWS, who cherishes his 'agnosticism' and defends it with emotional furvor, I do not hold atheism in any particularly high regard.  That's because there are plenty of bonafide atheists who believe in psychics, ley lines, homeopathy, and all kinds of other nonsense.  So atheists are clearly not intellectually superior by the virtue of being atheist. Just because they happened to get it right when it comes to the existence of god doesn't mean they're not necessarily loopy...

BWS said:

"This is what you don't understand. No conclusion or assertion = no needed evidence"

That's correct but obviously YOU don't understand it because what you've described is atheism not agnosticism.  Agnosticism makes the claim that god might exist.  Atheism does not make any claim about god's existence.

"You have not "observed" that I am unreasonable...It was your OPINION that I am an "unreasonable zealot," not an observation. "

Ah, but unlike you and most people, I don't invest emotionally in my statements.  That allows me to be more objective than those who do.  My OPINION is that I am capable of objectively observing you,  and my observation is that you are an unreasonable zealot.

BWS said:

"That A hole was attacking me for my beliefs and opinions about god, not about the words agnostic and atheist and what they  mean. This prick was waging non believer jihad on me just for believing that it is impossible to know for sure if there is a god or not. "

And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it.  You are a weak-minded invididual who puffs out his chest and 'laughs' at people who aren't agnostics, until they stick up for themselves and cause you to lose your argument, at which point you throw a tizzy fit about being victimized because suddenly you want to portray yourself not as the laughing superior philopher, but rather, a philosopher with such a benign and non-offensive belief system that only a real meany would dare to pick it apart. 

I stopped baiting true-believers years ago, because it's too easy, and when it comes down to it, their position, while ignorant, is honest.  Nowadays I take to task people like you, who portray their viewpoints as benign but which are anything but.  As far as I'm concerned I'd rather live in a world filled with true-believers than people like you, who are prepard to lie to themselves and everyone else.  Your discourse is offensive, and I'm not even referring to all the ad hominem crap.  You're not a martyr.  Get over yourself.

BWS said:

"All you have done is make generalizations about agnostics, claiming that we take these positions on god and creator theories because we don't give it much thought, and that we must believe that god can be anything, even "a dog turd." "

No, I said that if you apply your agnosticism honestly then you have to accept that the likelihood of god being a dog turd is as likely as god being anything else.  You  just don't like having your personal philosophy proven to be a farce.

"You make the assumption that we are "sticking" to the agnostic "mantra" because we think there may be a god who will smite us for our agnostic views,"  No,  I said that the motives for adopting an agnostic position include various reasons like being afraid god might smite you if you call yourself atheist.  I did not say that all agnostics are motivated to be agnostics for the same reasons.  I listed a bunch of reasons people are drawn to agnosticism, and it doesn't matter whether one or or all of those reasons are behind your personal view of agnosticism, because I proved that ALL of the reasons one might adopt to justify an agnostic position are fallacious.

I said: "Any physicists or cosmologists who experience so much cognitive dissonance upon being 'baffled' that they have to attribute the phenomena that baffles them to supernatural causes is a physicist or cosmologist who should be fired."  err, that is, unless their employer happens to be the Vatican...

Cool story bro.

You and BWS deserve each other.

Holy crud. Please stop with the stupid. Trying to have a discussion with you would be like trying to have a discussion with a table. I have neither the want nor care to do either. 

Good day to you sir. I said good day.

BWS said:

"Here is an example for you; Bre X was a fraudulent gold mining company "

Bre X?  Did I just enter a timewarp back to 1998??  FYI, I'm in Canada and I know all about Bre-X.  While you had to read the WSJ to get info about it, it was splashed all over our dailies for years...

"Even through it appeared as though he was dead, he was still alive. "

OH REALLY?  I retract my statement that your knoweldge of Bre-X was provided by the Wall Street Journal.  Clearly you've been having fun on conspiracy websites.  So, where is the guy who jumped from the helicopter, who's still alive, according to you?  You seem to 'know' this even though there is no evidence he is still alive.  What this has to do with the topic at hand, I have no idea, I think you were hoping to bring up a topic to obfuscate that you assumed I wouldn't know anything about.  You just picked a boquet of oopsie-daisies!

"Another example: When we made the desicion to invade Iraq, one of the only pretexts for the war was the claim that Sadam had nuclear weapons. Well, the administration and people like Donald Rumsfeld used your logic of "you can't prove a negative." They used that same stupid idea to rebuff the people who knew there were no nuclear weapons, saying "how am I supposed to prove the weapons do not exist, you can't prove the unknown unknowns" or something stupid like that. "

I see your knowledge of recent geopolitical history is on par with your knowledge of everything else...  The WMD thing was predicated on falsified recon reports.  The Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq and needed an excuse that the public would support, so they falsified recon reports suggesting WMDs existed in Iraq.  It's called a lie, and that's something  I KNOW you're intimately familiar with.

BWS said:

"Not believing because you have no way of knowing and flat out denying are two different things" 

That's right, because you can only deny something that exists.  It's impossible to deny something that doesn't exist. 

BlackWallStreet said:

"You treat science as if it can already explain everything in the universe, and every phenomena that continue to baffle the most brilliant physicists and cosmologists on earth"

Any physicists or cosmologists who experience so much cognitive dissonance upon being 'baffled' that they have to attribute the phenomena that baffles them to supernatural causes is a physicist or cosmologist who should be fired.

"In all my time in science labs, classes, and lectures,"

..you got plenty of sleep, right?  wanted to be well-rested for recess, I guess!

yeah, and penn jillette thinks second and smoke is a beneficial vitamin....

If I want advice on a card trick or how to be a homosexual, I'll ask a magician... otherwise I'll stick to Dawkins or Dennet.

BlackWallStreet said:

"There you go again, making stuff up, making generalizations and assumptions, just like a true idiot. I never said I want to be atheist,"

Yes you did, in plain language.  I'm not twisting your words or making 'generalizations and assumptions.  You said, and I quote ""I would like to think that it (the universe) was not created by a creator,".   YOU said it.  You are obviously too confused to continue this discussion because all you can do at this point is insist that you didn't say what you just said and that the emperor doesn't have no clothes, etc, etc...  pathetic.

BlackWallstreet said:

"He (jinkies) is comfortable making personal attacks on someone who disagrees with him "  Your attempts to play the victim card are so smarmy you might as well call yourself SmarmyWallStreet!  YOU started off this entire discussion by claiming that you and your superior 'agnostic' pals are always 'laughing' at everyone else.  Not in good fun, no, the context in which you implied the laughter was pejorative.  YOU are the person who has nothing but personal attacks to rely on because your debating skills are vastly inferior to the person you are trying to debate with.    Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger, Dunning-Kruger!!!!!

Eric said:

"I agree.Particularly with your conclusion. I'm not prepared to say there is or isn't a supreme being. I do believe that if there's a heaven or hell, everybody (humans) gets a thumbs up or down"

Of course you agree with him, because you and BlackWallStreet are both religious-types.  BlackWallStreet is rightly ashamed of it, but still too much of a wimp to abandon it.... now the two of you are going to have a faith-based love-in patting each other on the back because you erroneously think you have a mutual enemy in me.  BlackWallSTreet is such a weakling he isn't going to take you to task for your claiming you 'agree' with him about believing in heaven because the two of you have decided that ganging up on someone who's ideas offend you is more important than maintaining your so-called beliefs or lack of beliefs.  Too bad for you guys that I have no problem running circles around both you mental midgets and as many more glad-handing yes-men you can coax into your alliance of convenience. 

BlackWallStreet said:

"You claim there is no reason to believe is something that has no evidence of existing, yet completely ignore the obvious, which is that there is no reason to believe something does not exist that has no evidence of not existing. It works both ways."

no it doesn't 'work both ways', and there is not a logicitician on the planet who would say it does.  You CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE.  That's logic 101. What makes you so arrogant that you feel justified in spouting off nonsense when you are clearly an uneducated buffoon?  Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Well you're a textbook example.

BlackWallStreet said:  "Atheist is a person who claims they KNOW god does not exist, "

No, that's just plain wrong.  How could an atheist know something that is unknowable?  An atheist doesn't 'know' god does not exist, and I challenge to you provide reference to a dictionary that supplies that definition.  Every single dictionary definition says atheism is about BELIEF, not KNOWING.  so QUIT LYING.  If you have to make up stuff to refute atheism then clearly you are not capable of refuting atheism.

If we are going to run around calling atheists agnostics, and agnostics atheists, then what in the hell is an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theists? Why do these titles even exist if the two are the same thing?

I do not agree with the theory that the two can mean the same thing. It is not fair to atheists, and it is not fair to agnostics. And I mean that in the sense that it is unfair to people who believe there is no god or creator, and it is unfair to people who leave the matter open and refuse to believe one way or the other. The words atheist and agnostic may mean the same thing to some people, but the problem is that those who identify as either one can often get the two mixed up and misrepresented by either title. Then you end up being perceived as an atheist when you are really undecided about the matter, or end up perceived as an agnostic when you truly believe there are no gods at all. Does that makes sense to you?

The two words can only mean the same thing if people get them mixed up and don't care about making an actual distinction in identifying the people who consider themselves atheist or agnostic.

The title is much less important than the actual point of view and opinion of the person using the title. They might as well use the titles of red and blue, because the words really make no difference to the actual beliefs of the person identifying themselves through the words.

Call me atheist or agnostic if you aren't smart enough to know the actual difference. As long as you understand and respect my beliefs, it doesn't really matter. That is the problem I had with "jinkies." That A hole was attacking me for my beliefs and opinions about god, not about the words agnostic and atheist and what they  mean. This prick was waging non believer jihad on me just for believing that it is impossible to know for sure if there is a god or not.

Thanks for the links, Nathan.

Stop spreading lies. The two are not the same, and are not mutually exclusive. All you need to do is two minutes of research to find out that they two are not the same thing. If they were, there would not be TWO frickin words. Every text I have ever read on this subject lists the two as being completely different. One is definitive, and the other one leaves the matter open. It is quite simple, yet all of you shit heads want to make it so complex. I have no idea why this is such a mind boggler for you guys.

People like the jinkster are fundamentally identical to the fanaticism of most Christians and hardline religious followers. He is comfortable making personal attacks on someone who disagrees with him and his beliefs about god. He makes generalizations and assumptions that are often nothing but lies meant to hurt and offend. He thinks that because we don't agree with every word he says, that we are less human or less worthy than he is. But the reality is that he doesn't know shit, and he is basing his poorly drawn conclusion on faith just like the rest of the fanatics and religious people out there. He can offer zero evidence for his theory that there is no god or creator, yet he expects us to immediately buy into it and follow him like they followed Jesus or something. People like him are a disgrace to the entire human race.

Atheism and agnosticism aren't mutually exclusive. You can be both. 

Penn Jillette has a good video on this subject (kinda long): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... 

Another Jillette video (shorter) discussing atheism vs. agnosticism:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... 

Another short video discussing atheist vs. agnostic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... 

There you go again, making stuff up, making generalizations and assumptions, just like a true idiot. I never said I want to be atheist, and I never said anything about supernatural explanations. You put those words in my mouth, not me.

It would be more comforting knowing that there is no creator to this universe, that does not mean I want to be atheist. If I was an atheist, I would be a huge prick and a douche nozzle like you are, and I would never want to be like you because you are such an idiot and a jerk. I would be surprised if you have any friends at all, especially if you ever have this conversation with them. You are not capable of showing any respect for anyone else or their opinions, and you continually fabricate words and statements as if I have said them, and you make generalizations and assumptions about pretty much everything.

" I find it hard to believe you're able to take yourself seriously on a regular basis..." Statements like these have nothing to do with the argument at hand, and are only meant to be hurtful and offensive, and to make yourself feel better about being so hateful towards someone who simply disagrees with you and your narrow minded opinions. You are attacking and insulting a non believer because of the way I choose to NOT believe, which when you think about it is something that a hardline Christian would normally do to someone. That just further proves my point that you are no different than a christian and use the same flawed logic to make decisions and draw conclusions. You have some type of complex that makes you force your terrible opinions on other people who disagree with you, and you are incapable of admitting when you are wrong.

You cannot write worth a shit, and you always resort to the lowest form of argument by makings stuff up, and making irrelevant personal attacks.

You clearly don't know what zealot means, because you accuse me of being one while exhibiting the classic behavior of a zealot. You are acting just like any fanatic would act in response to someone who does not agree with their opinions or view points. I have only been explaining myself this entire time, attempting to get you to understand that your ideas of what agnosticism is are completely false and baseless. Yet you just continue to make personal attacks and put words in my mouth.

You would fail all of the science courses I have taken in my lifetime, and your type of thought process, where you close your mind up and refuse to consider what is factual and what is just opinion and hearsay, is not welcome in any science lab or lecture hall. I have actually had a few lab partners like you, and they usually ended up hurting or diminishing the project or experiment with their stubborness, ignorance, and overall arrogant attitude that they are above science and it's methods. Idiots like you are lazy and never want to do the work but always want to share the credit. Kids like you were a laughing stock to the rest of us in class; too stupid to know the difference between a beaker and a flask. A true dunce in every sense of the meaning of the word.

You know how I can tell you have a poor understanding and appreciation for science? You treat science as if it can already explain everything in the universe, and every phenomena that continue to baffle the most brilliant physicists and cosmologists on earth. I can tell you are oblivious to the fact that we don't even have a unified theory of physics that is able to explain the very small and the very large under one roof. We don't even know if the speed of light is actually the universes speed limit. We don't know what goes on below the level of atoms. If you can study string theory and still sit there and spew this arrogant, self inflating garbage about how science will never bring evidence of a creator, and how science is some kind of all encompassing, all illuminating, simplistic blue print that easily explains away the entire universe and everything that goes on in it, then you will only continue to display the shameful ignorance of a most severely obstinate clown; someone who, in their own warped mind, can never be wrong, be corrected, or be respectful of others who disagree with them.

In all my time in science labs, classes, and lectures, I have never witnessed such a hideous example of disrespect for science and the scientific method. There is not one scientist or student of science in this world that would ever hold or present the opinions that you forced on me here today. There is no logic or reason in your statements, in fact it was the exact opposite for most of the statements. Every comment is like a hallmark of an idiot, making assumptions and generalizations every other sentence. You are making stuff up and assuming things that have no truth to them.

You know what the term is for your type of outlook on the world, and the universe? Vanity. You think that you, as a human being living on earth, are the most important thing in the universe, and that nothing else matters but your life. You have no concept of what the universe really is. This planet is only a few billion years old, and the universe is almost 14 billions years old. Humans beings haven't even been around for a millions years in our current form. We have only been living together, civilized, for about 10 thousand years. We are meaningless specs of dust amongst the cosmos, which contains trillions and trillions and trillions of stars in the universe, and there are more than 500 billion galaxies. There is so much about the universe that we don't know, and we don't even know if this is the only universe, or what happens to black holes within our universe. We don't even know how many dimensions there really are, but there sure as hell are more than three.

With all of these facts considered, and also considering that we know just a tiny fraction of a percent about the universe, there is really no logical reason to be swayed to one side of the creator theory argument or the other. When you don't even know exactly what fraction of 1% is actually known about the observable universe, and all you really know is that you know close to nothing at all about it, it leaves far too many possibilities open for me or any student of science to be making up their mind about whether or not there is a god. There is just too much that is unknown about the universe for me to take any theories about a creator existing or not existing seriously.

People like you are true enemies science because you stifle, mitigate, and diminish any potential knowledge or wisdom that may come from science. Instead you attempt to use it to force your own agenda or opinions on others, while at the same time denying them the opportunity and right to express their own opinions without fear of being harassed by you.

You are so intolerant and shortsighted, like a Christian arguing against the theory of evolution, that you can't even capitulate that there is even the slightest possibility of there being a force or higher being that created this universe and everything in it. In a situation where you have absolutely zero evidence to support your own theory, and zero evidence to refute the oppositions theory, you have somehow transcended common sense, reason, and logic to reach conclusions based on faith.

"The LACK of a claim does NOT require evidence.  Since I do not claim god exists, I do not have to provide evidence that he does."

You are too stupid to realize that you are making many of my point for me. The lack of a claim does not require evidence, that is true. Like that fact that agnostics stance on god does not involve any claim whatsoever. We do not claim a damn thing. You on the other hand do make a claim. You, as an atheist, have made the claim that god does not exist. You think you know for a fact that god does not exist, which is a claim, which means it requires evidence in order to prove it. Just because you do not claim god exists does not mean you are free to claim he doesn't exist, without providing any evidence. I really don't know why it is so hard for you to understand this. You keep acting like you are so much smarter than me and everyone else who won't make absurd claims about god as if the claims were true, then neglect to provide any shred of evidence to support that claim. You are condescending, rude, and snobby towards me from the very start, acting as if you are above me just because you have a certain opinion about god that is not identical to mine.

You make assertions about the existence of god and then claim you don't need to provide evidence because you foolishly believe that you can't prove "a negative." Here is an example for you; Bre X was a fraudulent gold mining company that was implicated in a massive mining scandal in indonesia. The CEO and person who carried out the scam ended up faking his own death to avoid prosecution. Even through it appeared as though he was dead, he was still alive. By your ill formed logic, there would be no need to prove he is not dead, because hey..."you can't prove a negative." Another example: When we made the desicion to invade Iraq, one of the only pretexts for the war was the claim that Sadam had nuclear weapons. Well, the administration and people like Donald Rumsfeld used your logic of "you can't prove a negative." They used that same stupid idea to rebuff the people who knew there were no nuclear weapons, saying "how am I supposed to prove the weapons do not exist, you can't prove the unknown unknowns" or something stupid like that.

The point is that you can and must prove things like that, which you falsly claim are not provable because they are "negatives."

By your flawed logic, I could say or claim almost anything like "I don't steal money" or "I don't cheat on my wife" and you would have to just believe me because there is no way to prove that my claims are not true.

You don't understand that even though you are claiming that god does not exist, you are still making a claim that something is either true or false. When you make a claim that something is either true or false, you are accepting the burden of proof for that claim. The evidence that proves that god does NOT exist is as abundant as the evidence that proves god does exist, which is zero evidence whatsoever. Which is why I am agnostic. Only a fool would make the claim that they know the answer to whether a creator exists. Do you also know what the meaning of life is? Perhaps you could tell me why we are here, why we exist? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is there extraterrestrial life out there in the universe? Since you claim to know the answer to such a profound question as whether or not god exists, I figured you might know all the other important questions to the meaning of life and our existence. Oh omniscient and knowledgeable human genius, please tell us all the unknown, mysterious questions of all human life!

You are so ignorant and stupid, it is really sad. Any idiot can look up these words in a dictionary, yet you clearly haven't done that. Atheist is a person who claims they KNOW god does not exist, and that the universe was random and not created by a higher being.

This statement you've made makes no sense at all; "Atheist does not mean making a claim that god does not exist.  It means not making a claim that god exists or could exist."

So, what, just by sitting and not saying anything about whether god exists makes you an atheist? I guess that rules you out, since you have run your mouth claiming to know that god does not exist. By the way, you absolutely have a burden of proof. Whenever you make a statement or claim that something is either true of false, in this case claiming that it is true there is no god, you have a burden of proof. That means no one in obligated to take you seriously, or believe your claim of something to be true, unless you provide adequate proof that what you are claiming is in fact true. It works both ways; if you claim god exists, you bear the burden of proof to show that your claim is true. If you claim god does not exist, you bear the burden of proof to show that your claim is true. The point of an agnostic is that NEITHER claim can be backed by proof, so agnostics are not capable of believing either claim until they are provided with proof. It does not matter what side you  take, and it doesn't matter if you have to prove a negative because you can't prove either one in any way, shape, or form.

 "I stand by my observation that you are an unreasonable zealot."

Yet another display of your unapologetic ignorance and poor vocabulary. You have not "observed" that I am unreasonable or a zealot (by the way, your use of the word zealot is definitive proof that you do not know the meaning of the word). It was your OPINION that I am an "unreasonable zealot," not an observation.

"Simple, there's no reason to 'beleive' in anything for which there is no evidence for its existence."

Not believing because you have no way of knowing and flat out denying are two different things. When you flat out deny the existence of god, you are asserting, just the same as people who truly believe in the existence of god.

While there is no reason to believe in god because there is no evidence for its existence, the same applies for denying the existence of god. When you deny the existence of god, there is no reason to believe god does NOT exist because there is no evidence. You need to understand this, because you are making a complete fool of yourself by ranting about how agnostics this and that, when you really don't know a damn thing about agnosticism.

I really don't know why you refuse to understand this very simple and basic concept.

You claim there is no reason to believe is something that has no evidence of existing, yet completely ignore the obvious, which is that there is no reason to believe something does not exist that has no evidence of not existing. It works both ways.

Agnostics will not believe god exists, for the same reasons agnostics refuse to believe that god does not exist, the complete lack of evidence to support either claim.

Agnosticism is claiming no conclusions, therefore it needs no evidence or proof. It is simply the idea that we refuse to attempt to answer questions without any actual evidence. You need no experiment because there is nothing to prove. This is what you don't understand.

No conclusion or assertion = no needed evidence

There is nothing to prove in agnosticism! When you claim to know answers, then you need proof. Agnostics are not claiming to know any answers. It is not hard to understand, yet you are making it so difficult, it is sad to watch such a mental struggle.

What makes your assumptions hold any truth whatsoever? You think agnostics are simply people who haven't given these things much thought? That is your pea brain trying so hard to understand something that you are completely ignorant of, and failing miserably. I have studied the cosmos, physics, environmental sciences, world history, western and eastern civilizations, and philosophy. I have had countless and lengthy discussions with my professors and peers, and written numerous essays about these topics. Your childish opinions of people who are comfortable with simply not knowing the answer to the unknowable question of the existence of a creator is insulting and offensive.

A very bright written once wrote that to generalize is to be an idiot, and in your case nothing can be closer to the truth. All you have done is make generalizations about agnostics, claiming that we take these positions on god and creator theories because we don't give it much thought, and that we must believe that god can be anything, even "a dog turd." You make the assumption that we are "sticking" to the agnostic "mantra" because we think there may be a god who will smite us for our agnostic views, which is so stupid I don't know where to begin a rebuttal. If we feared god, that would mean we believe it exists, and even further we would believe that it is the "christian god" who is angry. This is contradictory to the definition of agnosticism, because agnostics point of view is that no one can possibly know if there is a creator, and if there is one, it sure as heck isn't what the christians, jews, or muslims think it is.

Part of your problem, being so closed minded and all, is that you have the same vision of what god is as the christians do, even though you dont believe it exists. So you think that everyone else who doesn't have the same point of view as you do, that god does not exist, has the same exact vision of what god is, which is the christians vision of "god." This is not true, and even the Romans, before they were christians, believe in many different gods, not just one. There are people who believe there is a creator, but who have a completely different idea of what god is. Some believe god is more of an energy or force within the universe, and not a bearded human like character in the sky. The point is that not everyone sees "god" or a creator the same way as you do.

You seem to really love making assumptions, generalizations, and jumped conclusions. These are very real traits of an ignorant person.

BlackWallStreet said:

"I would like to think that it was not created by a creator, but the fact that we know close to nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together comprise over 95% of the known universe, makes be think that if we know so little about something that makes up almost the entire universe (all planets, stars, galaxies, space dust and debris make up 4% of the universe) "

Let me get this straight, you WANT to be atheist, but because we don't know much about dark energy and dark matter, since we only discovered them recently, you're prepared to put a supernatural explaination behind them, without a shred of scientific evidence?  I guess you couldn't hide your true feelings about science for long.  You hold no reverence for science whatsoever.  You are a fraud.  (Oh and if I am 'villifying' you, that's ok, because zealots are always villified, donchaknow).  You are not interested in scientific explainations for dark matter and dark energy or else you would be calling for just those kinds of explainations.  Instead you're fallaciously using what ISN'T known about dark matter and dark energy to posit that 'god' may be responsible!  I find it hard to believe you're able to take yourself seriously on a regular basis...

BlackWallStreet said:

"It is possible that this world and this universe were not created by any higher being, and it also possible that it was created by some higher intelligent being. As of right now modern science cannot provide any information that can persuade me to favor one theory over the other as being more probable."  Oh give me a break, you are so disingenuous it's downright, smarmy!  You know damn well that 'science' will never bring you evidence of god.  What makes believers out of deniers or fence sitters is MIRACLES.  And science can't explain miracles.  So quit hiding goofily behind 'science' as if it's some kind of cloak that protects you from having speak the truth.

I agree.

Particularly with your conclusion. I'm not prepared to say there is or isn't a supreme being. I do believe that if there's a heaven or hell, everybody (humans) gets a thumbs up or down. If there's a hereafter, I hope every creature shares it. I don't believe karma for a Hitler or Cheney should be the same as for decent people, or for my dogs or horses, or every animal that ever had to eat shit from any human, but but who's to say fair has anything to do with anything?

 The jinkster seems pissed off. But I'm not going to be goaded into a position I don't believe. 

You said:"I don't think you even know what agnostic means,"

Actually, I think the problem may be that you don't know what atheist means.  Atheist does not mean making a claim that god does not exist.  It means not making a claim that god exists or could exist.  While it's true that an atheist believes that god does not exist, the atheist does not have to provide any evidence for that because you can't prove a negative.  Until there is reason to believe in god, which there isn't, there is no reason to believe in god.  Pretty simple stuff, that is, if you're willing to accept it..

BlackWallstreet: I stand by my observation that you are an unreasonable zealot. 

You said:

"I don't think you even know what agnostic means,"

I think you don't want to admit what agnostic means.

You said:

"problem is that you used no experiments"

And neither did you use any 'experiments' to arrive at your agnosticism.  You did not test that hypothesis according to the scientific method, did you?  No, of course you didn't.  You insist that believers and non-believers apply the scientific method to their beliefs, but you do not apply the scientific method to yours.  You just keep admitting that over and over again, as if you somehow think that makes it any less looney.

You said:

"If I don't draw conclusions in the lab when there is no evidence, why would I ever draw conclusions about anything else without actual evidence to support one theory or the other?"

Simple, there's no reason to 'beleive' in anything for which there is no evidence for its existence.  For example, today there is no cure for cancer.  I can state that factually and believe it whole-heartedly.  But in the future, there may be a cure for cancer.  Or maybe there won't ever be a cure for cancer.  It doesn't matter what I think about the future of cancer treatment, because there is no reason to believe that cancer will or won't be cured in the future.  And by the same token, there is no evidence for god's existence today..  None whatsoever.  In the future, he might pop in and say HI, but then, all sorts of extraordinarily ridiculous things could happen in the future.  Who knows, maybe Pee Wee Herman will be revealed to be the anti-christ.  Are you telling me that until that happens I'm supposed to entertain its likelihood with a probability factor greater than zero in order to be part of your oh-so-intellectually-superior agonistics club?  Yeah. that IS what you're saying, and I call BS!  There is no reason for me  to 'wonder' if god exists, or 'not be sure', because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The LACK of a claim does NOT require evidence.  Since I do not claim god exists, I do not have to provide evidence that he does.  You, on the other hand claim that MAYBE god exists, and as far as I'm concerned that's almost as extraordinary of a claim as saying god DOES exist, therefore the onus on you is to provide evidence that god 'might exist', yet you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support your claim.  And FYI, your rather poor understanding of the scientific method does not constitute evidence that god might exist, in fact applying the scientific method to god reveals that he doesn't exist, since there is NOTHING TO TEST.  Now, I have a feeling much of this is going way over your head, but I've done my best to put it in clear and plain language.  I have no desire to argue or hold your hand through this 'debate'.  I've said my piece and have answered your relevent questions, and I'm comfortable with my position on the matter, therefore I feel I have no further obligation to waste any more of my time on this discussion.

"That's what we call a double-standard, you are requiring that the people who's ideas you don't like jump through impossible hoops that you don't make people who's ideas you do like jump through."

What impossible hoops? Are you really calling the scientific method an "impossible hoop" that the theories of christianity and atheism must "jump through?" I am really wondering why agnosticism is so hard for you to understand. Agnosticism is a stance that specifically avoids making any definitive theories that involve conclusions about the existence of a creator. It is not like atheism in any way at all. Atheism is a stance or theory that takes up a definitive position on the potential existence of a creator, just like christianity is a stance or theory that takes up a definitive position on the existence of a creator. This is why agnosticism is way different than any other theory about god or a creator. All the other theories have decided to go ahead and answer that question about whether god exists, even though there is no basis in science for the answers.

If you can't answer the question of whether a god or creator exists without saying "I DON'T KNOW!!!!," then you are basically saying "I trust my own faith more than modern science." Wake up and realize that this "faith" cr*p is really just the equivalent of a persons "gut feeling" or "gut instinct." If you can't admit that your basis for believing there is no god really just amounts to your own gut instinct, then you on the verge of being delusional.

It is possible that this world and this universe were not created by any higher being, and it also possible that it was created by some higher intelligent being. As of right now modern science cannot provide any information that can persuade me to favor one theory over the other as being more probable. I would like to think that it was not created by a creator, but the fact that we know close to nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together comprise over 95% of the known universe, makes be think that if we know so little about something that makes up almost the entire universe (all planets, stars, galaxies, space dust and debris make up 4% of the universe) then we have many questions to answer before getting anywhere close to answering the question about a creator.

Eric, in your case, and in the case of many people who call themselves 'agnostic', the word 'agnostic' simply means 'I haven't thought about it much".  For some people it's simply not that important to sort out for themselves in order to get through the daily grind.  But here is a not-so-comforting though: if you were to truely approach the agnostic position honestly, then you would have to admit that 'god' could be anywhere, and any thing.  God could literally be a dog turd, if you are agnostic and prepared to accept the logic of the agnostic.  I don't know about you, but I'd feel like a fool if I had to admit that 'god' could be a dog turd, or any other ludicrous item of any fantabulous description, for that matter.  I think once you are prepared to not find god in a dog turd, you might as well keep going in that direction by not finding him anywhere else, either.   I forgot to mention one other reason some people stick to the 'agnostic' mantra, and that's because they are afraid of making 'god' angry, if 'god' exists.  Sort of hedging their bets, but if you think about it, that's not agnosticism at all, that's believe in god.  As soon as you are afraid an all-powerful deity is somehow going to be angry with you for not believing in him when he purposely gave you absolutely no sign of his existence besides a suspicious book, it's obvious you're just plain crazy (that 'you' being rhetorical, I'm not directing this final paragraph to you, necessarily, Eric, unless you think it fits...) 

"It's not about being an elitist"

So what is it about?  According to what you wrote, you think it's about asking a bunch of rhetorical questions that discount the idea of god (innocents suffering horribly) only to fail to conclude that if an all-powerful maker being existed, he wouldn't let that kind of stuff happen?

How am I wrong to claim that no one on earth can possibly know the answer to these questions? Agnostics refuse to make a conclusion based on "faith," and while you claim that the scientific method is not applicable to faith, the fact is that faith is irrelevant to the scientific method because no conclusions are made without actual evidence. Faith is contradictory to science and the scientific method because no observational or quantifiable data is required to draw conclusions with faith. Faith is like a cop out for all the people who don't like to think for themselves. Faith has nothing to do with science, which is why atheists express their own beliefs about creation and god theories with the same illogical thought process as any other religious person. In order to believe that there is no god or creator, you must rely on faith and nothing else. There is no evidence or proof of there being a creator, or not being a creator.

You cannot go around saying "well science proves there is no god because it shows a higher probability of the universe being a random occurrence than a created one." Our current understanding and knowledge of how the universe works and how it was formed has absolutely no evidence that could persuade any scientists or cosmologist to believe that it is more likely and probable that the universe was not made by a creator. The only thing that can lead a person to make the conclusion that there is or is not a creator is faith and not science. Science does not allow conclusions to be made without observational or quantifiable evidence, and there is really no way around that aspect of the scientific method.

I don't think you even know what agnostic means, because if you did, you wouldn't claim that I give them some kind of "free pass" in regard to conclusions made about a possible creator. Agnostics do not make that conclusion at all, and being agnostic means a person refuses to claim they know whether or not there is in fact a creator. Most agnostics do not make those conclusions because of an adherence to the scientific method. If I don't draw conclusions in the lab when there is no evidence, why would I ever draw conclusions about anything else without actual evidence to support one theory or the other? It makes no sense to do that. There is nothing "honest" about believing or not believing in a god when you have no factual or scientific basis for believing either theory. You want to talk about people feeling superior??? The Christians feel so superior to non believers and people of other religions that they believe there is a dream land like utopia waiting for them when they die, and a fiery hell of slavery and suffering waiting for the rest of us.

I don't know why you have such a problem with agnostics, because of all people, they are the only ones who don't act superior to everyone else by claiming to know the answers about god. You clearly feel like you are better than I am because you think you absolutely know the answer to whether there is a god or not. You believe there is no god, and someone else believes there is, yet you both have the same amount of evidence to prove your theories, which is zero evidence. That means you are both making conclusions in regard to the questions of there being a creator based solely on faith, and nothing else. So why then, are you any different from the Christian who claims he or she knows there is a god? The answer is that you are not really any different than the Christian. Faith is faith.

I can sit here and say, "hey, it's more probable that the universe was not created by a creator or higher power, and it is more likely that it was just a random occurrence" all I want, but probability is not evidence that can prove things. Probability does not work that way, and you cannot use it as if it is solid and concrete evidence that can prove your theory. For example; I have a jar of jelly beans, and you have to guess how many beans there are in it. You can take a cup and scoop out a cup full of jelly beans to count, then you can make an estimate of how many cups you think there are in the jar. While this will give you a good idea and estimate of how many jelly beans there might be in the jar, it is not going to tell you the exact number of beans. You can say that while it is probable there are X number of jelly beans in the jar, based on the estimate you took and the method you used to estimate, you cannot say that there are absolutely X number of jelly beans in the jar. There is no possible way to definitely (not probably but definitely) know the number of jelly beans without counting each and every bean in the jar. THAT is how probability works, and it does not allow any scientists to make DEFINITE conclusions about anything. I mean, I myself could write a book on all the scientifically based probabilities that some people may perceive as evidence or proof that god does not exist, but none of those things could be used as actual evidence to support the theory that there is no god.

You said, "but for some reason (you) give a free pass to the 'laughing agnostics', who apparently don't have to use the scientific method to arrive at agnosticism." But the problem with that illogical opinion of yours is that agnosticism is essentially a byproduct of the scientific method. In the scientific method the goal is to reach a conclusion as a response to a hypothesis. The conclusion is there to prove the hypothesis true or false. Your hypothesis is "I believe there is no god or creator of our known universe," and your conclusion is "My hypothesis is true, and I have proved there is no creator." The problem is that you used no experiments, which should provide the needed observational or quantifiable evidence to support your hypothesis, and therefore jumped the traditional steps of the scientific method and instead opted to simply use faith to fill in the blanks (the blanks being the actual evidence to prove the theory or hypothesis). Agnostics refuse to go forward with the scientific method and draw a conclusion in regard to the question of a creators existence because it would not be real science.

You said, "nobody applies the scientific method to matters of faith because it is inapplicable," but in reality, it is more like everybody applies faith to the scientific method in a feeble attempt to use science and the scientific method to prove there is or is not a god. For you people, the scientific method goes like this; Ask a question, do background research, formulate a hypothesis, FAITH, draw a conclusion. Agnostics end the procedure after formulating a hypothesis, and that is because there is no experiment at this point in time that can be done to test the hypothesis.

You know what your problem is? You, just like the christians, cannot stand the fact that some people are not willing to make a desicion about believing in the existence of god. For whatever reasons you have, you don't like it when people refuse to resort to "faith" in order to answer life's toughest questions. You have no respect for or understanding of the scientific method by claiming to be an atheist who knows the answers to the unanswerable questions, which makes you every bit as closed minded as the hardline christians, jews, and muslims. I really don't understand why it is so difficult to admit that you have no clue whether god exists or not, and that there is no way to determine if a creator actually exists. Everyone has to fill in the blanks with their absurd beliefs and then force those foolish beliefs on the rest of us who refuse to replace science with faith.

Agnostics are the only people who don't falsely claim to know the answers to the questions that are impossible to correctly answer, and yet you still managed to demonize and vilify me as someone who is not only "completely wrong" but also "weak, smarmy, and elitist" as well as accusing me of identifying myself as agnostic "out of a desire to not offend anyone in particular." All of those accusations are false. I am not asserting myself as being correct about anything because I refuse to attempt to answer the question about god, and all I did was express my opinion that atheists are no different than religious people. Therefore I cannot be wrong about anything because all I really did was express my own opinion. You might disagree with my opinion, but that is not the same as me being wrong. I also don't just identify myself as agnostic to avoid offending people. I don't mind if I offend you or anyone else, and sometimes I even enjoy offending people like you because many times you people deserve it for being closed minded jerk offs who think they're always right and that no one else is entitled to their own opinion without you telling them they are "wrong." I hope you actually learn what the scientific method is someday. Maybe then you will understand how stupid it is to make conclusions based on nothing but faith.

Not necessarily.

I guess I'm agnostic, as I simply don't know what awaits us, if there's a supreme being, whether there's a heaven or hell, and if we have souls that rejoice or regret after we die.

It's hard for me to square the idea, that for instance, people go either to heaven or hell and the other creatures on this planet, all of whom have a higher purpose than humans, don't have a future in the hereafter.

Elephants reforest with their dung. Bees pollinate. So on and so forth.

Human beings take everything but don't give anything to the planet. 

Why would a person merit heaven? And a horse not?

If there's a God, why the Holocaust? Cancer? People that use freaking fluid? Leaders that send young men into buildings with planes, or cowards that order the invasion of and slaughter of people in countries that had nothing to do with thugs flying planes into buildings?

Faith, as we know it, is a frilly term for guessing. There are no witnesses of death and returning. 

It's not about being an elitist. No more than a person of faith being a sucker.