<p>Easter Island - people were stronger then than many are now. :P</p>
<p>Ridiculing the Young Earth Creationist position is entirely appropriate.</p>
<p>
Sorry, but not believing in something and believing something might exist are mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>My point still stands.</p>
<p>
Your username was well-chosen.</p>
<p>LOL^
how bout God Theory?</p>
<p>“Sorry, but not believing in something and believing something might exist are mutually exclusive.”</p>
<p>Agnostic does <em>not</em> mean you believe it may exist - simply that you don’t have proof.</p>
<p>^ Sorry, but that’s wrong.</p>
<p>Agnosticism means one of two things:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You don’t know.</p></li>
<li><p>You don’t know, and nobody ever can know.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Believing there is no God and believing it can’t be proven is perfectly atheistic. Most adherents of religion believe their religion can’t be “proven” - otherwise, there’d be no use for the concept of “faith”.</p>
<p>agnosticism - that one cannot know with certainty.
atheism - lack of belief in god(s).</p>
<p>so not mutually exclusive. mutually exclusive would be like soy sauce and the set of all things that can be poured on ice cream.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for explaining more clearly :P</p>
<p>^ Soy cause goes great with ice cream, you bigot!</p>
<p>I guess I forgot my own argument that atheism involves faith. Given that, then yes, one could denounce the existence of God while simultaneously admitting that this could not be proven. I guess I just gave atheists too much credit. :)</p>
<p>Buuuut, that doesn’t contradict my original statement, which is that atheism involves blind faith. Just because you admit it’s blind faith doesn’t mean it’s not still blind faith.</p>
<p><em>comes full circle</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wasn’t being debated, just the “Agnostic Atheist” part :P</p>
<p>I do agree with what you originally stated.</p>
<p>firstly, i saw the knowing, & it sucked. well, i was really looking forward to it for a long time. & i watched it like 2 days ago. & it starts out okay, but then the last 1/2 hour ruined it for me. like, ***…</p>
<p>secondly, ■■■■■, what’s with every one attacking josh? his original statement was perfectly fine, & it’s like u people got your guns ready, blazing or something. seriously, i’m agnostic/atheist myself, but no wonder we have bad rep. let people believe what they want to believe.
/rant.</p>
<p>Thank you, smarteeangel101.</p>
<p>It is hypocritical, as someone else said earlier, to criticize “Bible thumpers” while at the same time ridiculing Christianity and shoving atheism down someone’s throat.</p>
<p>Think about what you say. All I said was my belief. I didn’t ask anyone to change theirs.</p>
<p>going back to the OP…'bout the mythological creatures like sphinxs, dragons…I heard somewhere that scientists think it is because people in ancient times dug up fossils of dinosaurs and so on, and came up with stories about them.
Think about it- if you (in prehistoric times or whatever) found the bones of some sort of creature with wings that you know doesn’t exist in your time…what would you think? It’s not that far of a strech to come up with mythological creatures, given how rooted they were in supernatural happenings and stuff.</p>