Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
WTF. You do realize that what you just said makes no sense. Being an Atheist means you don`t believe there is any diety. Agnostic is usually taken to mean that you question a diety`s existence.
Uh, no, it`s called that Mitchell and Webb look.
And to all those people argueing over religion and atheism, can`t you see that this sketch is taking the mick out of people like you? How come whenever God appears in something in even the most trivial of senses, people on here have to go into a massive agruement over it? It doesn`t solve anything you know, and no-one`s going to change their minds Â¬_Â¬
No. Atheism is the absence of belief in God. If the question were, "Do you belive in God?" and you answer "No," then you are atheist. It is the necessary and sufficient condition for atheism. You are referring to something some people would call `strong` atheism, but I reject the term because it complicates the issue. If you don`t believe, you`re atheist. You don`t have to positively believe there is no God to be atheist, though some atheists do indeed believe that.
Baby_bear, not all atheists think there is no God, and indeed that is not the requirement for atheism. I can not believe in God for any number of reasons (not necessarily because I`ve researched the issue and have decided to assume there is no God), and still technically be atheist.
Also, I like to think of agnostics as pansy atheists /joking :D
In a nutshell, as you probably have had explained to you before, disorder and entropy are not the same. The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, not disorder.
good sketch :P
was this onion by any chance? i didnt see the logo but this is just the kinda win they do.
call a prostitue I suppose! - ROLFMAOPMP
And also, no-one is claiming that the multiverse is definitely real, even though it`s untestable right now. It`s just a suggestion, a thought experiment.
And even more importantly, if a huge mound of evidence were to come along which directly contradicted many aspects of the current literature about the multiverse, we would need to change the hypothesis, or scrap it.
While I would agree that human beings don`t know everything, and that there are probably things that we are currently unaware of in nature, when someone posits an elaborate, unprovable, untestable hypothesis about the cause of something, the default position is "no."
Oh, and the video is hilarious.
In this case there is no distiction; it`s not like not believing in Republicans policies. To not `believe in God` is the same as not believing in gods existance. Unless you referance a specific god you are using the concept of god. The only rational position to take is one of agnosticism; athiests are as narrow minded as religious fanatics.
Wrong. An atheist is someone who doesn`t believe in god, not necessarily someone who thinks there is none. The distinction is sublte but it is warranted nonetheless.
Funny video, though. I`ve seen it before. "Oh no wait, not that!"
I saw Jesus` face.Does that count?
I was under the impression that the point was a fruit being undeniable proof that there was no God, and the hilarious outcome if so, you know.. being a satire on the catholic church seeing Mary in toast and whatnot..Thanks for playing..though..:)
Although just through pondering..wouldnt words in a fruit (if taken seriously) be more paranormal rather than proof of non-paranormal? (rhetorical question...)
It`s all in your heart.
Punchline = win.
FOLLOW THIS EXAMPLE!!!
Errr no. Not really!
I saw this on TV last week and this line had me laughing for a long time after the sketch had finished xD Absolutely brilliant.