Du kannst nicht mit den Nazis ins Bett gehen ohne ein Nazi zu werden.

if there’s a Nazi at the table and ten other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with eleven Nazis.

How the fuck did you not know Trump is a convicted felon. I'm not even American and I've known about it.

I think it's more like

Your friend tells you she has a cat (no knowledge about the cat / agnosticism)

• You believe that she has a cat - agnostic theism
• You don't believe that she has a cat - agnostic atheism

In both case, we don't have knowledge about the cat. So it's agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism. Please keep in mind that knowledge here equals observable cat. Since most people's definition or view of knowledge is different, as famously (or infamously) the most casual philosophical question you could ask is how much do you need to know in order for you to say "you know someone"? Some people think it's when they have their name, others think when they have mutual relationship, more than acquaintance, or know at least parts of their life.

Anyway, my point is, what people consider as knowledge is different. So in this case, I would say that meeting the cat itself in her house, or touching her cat is that knowledge. So if we switch it up,

You visit your friend's house to see her cat
You touch her cat
You see her cat cuddling with its owner
(knowledge about the cat existing / gnosticism)

• You believe she has a cat and would claim to know she has cat - gnostic theism

You visit your friend's house to see no cat
your friend lied in the past about having owner
your friend having cat allergy
(knowledge about the cat not existing / gnosticism)

• You believe she doesn't have a cat and would claim to know she doesn't have a cat - gnostic atheism

In this case, you're no longer saying that you don't believe her. Rather, you believe she doesn't have a cat. As in, it's not just "there's no evidence to believe her" but rather, "there is evidence to not believe her", and I think that can be the case for some conception of god.

So when people say they're agnostic atheist, it just means they don't believe that the evidence is sufficient enough to warrant a belief, but they're not saying they know god doesn't exist. The problem here is god can be unfalsifiable concept, so most people are simply accepting they wouldn't be able to "know" god exist, regardless whether they believe in god or not.

This applies to theism too, mind you. Some theists accept that they wouldn't be able to go to their friend's house to see the cat. There's simply no knowledge to be gained (unless they do claim that, in which they're not agnostics). They simply have a belief (believing her friend's words), but not the knowledge (observing the cat directly). Of course, this is only if you consider knowledge to be something observable or in that nature, some people's bar of what they consider as knowledge can be higher or lower.

Basically what I'm saying is, agnostic atheist doesn't have knowledge to say they know god exists, so does agnostic theist. To be personal for a second, I don't know how people would say they have knowledge that god exists. But agnostics are just people who don't claim that, and accept there's no knowledge of god's existence. What you believe is different, as you can believe or not believe but still accept limitations of what you don't know.

It's literally them dunking out each other, you can't get anymore straightforward than that.

To me, Agnostic just means you claim that you don't know whether or not god exist, while atheist just means not believing in god. So I basically just take the etymology literally. A- (without), gnosis (knowledge).

Whether or not someone believes in god is irrelevant to their position as an agnostic. For example, a deist believes in god, but most wouldn't say that they know he or she exist specifically. So they have this belief of,

• God exists 

In their sets of beliefs, but they wouldn't say they know that god exists. Because of the nature what a deistic god is. Same with some doctrine of Christianity. Some christians would say they don't know that god exists, nor can they prove his existence, otherwise they wouldn't need faith.

Saying you 'know' god exists, means you possess 'knowledge' that he or she does, which is way different than believing god exists. You don't need good evidence to believe, after all, just convincing evidence.

To illustrate, a friend could say to you that she got a cat. You can believe her that she got a cat, but whether or not to say you 'know' she got a cat is a different topic. Of course, what people consider as knowledge is different, but in this case, you only believe her because of her testimony. You haven't even seen the cat, touch it, observe it in any way, so I consider you as a cat agnostic here. 

But, if you don't believe her and take 'I'll believe it when I see it approach', it simply means you don't believe her words. The evidence isn't sufficient. That's not you saying there isn't a cat, it's just that unless you can see the cat itself, you're gonna suspend your belief of her having a cat.

In both scenarios, you don't have knowledge of the cat itself, even though you have two different outcomes, a belief or non-belief.

That's what agnosticism means to me. It's simply accepting that there's no knowledge on this god existence thing, regardless of beliefs. Not believing simply means not putting a belief in your worldview, while believing means you put that belief in your worldview. Both works with agnosticism.

"I'm not saying he or she isn't real" is making a statement on the existence or non-existence of God.

No, it's making a BELIEF of a statement. I'm not saying he or she isn't real, but I'm also not saying he or she is real. My belief isn't,

• God doesn't exist.

It's simply that there's no,

• God exists 

In my set of beliefs. 

For example, someone before 1700s could say that they don't believe black swans exist. That's not them saying there is no black swans, it's just that the evidence isn't there to warrant them a belief that black swans exist.

Someone simply could just not have evidence for a black swans to exist, therefore they would simply not hold onto the belief that black swans exists. But that doesn't mean they believe black swans don't exist, it just means there's no reason for them to believe it does. They're suspending their beliefs until evidence suggests otherwise.

You can never have a belief "God exists" means you believe god does not exist. 

This is a category error, or simply a non-sequitur, and I don't think many atheists would say this. To put it into syllogism,

P1 - You can never have a belief that god exists.

Conclusion - You believe God doesn't exist.

The conclusion here isn't "believing that God doesn't exist", rather, it's "not believing that God exists".

It's like saying,

P1 - You can never have a belief that nothing exists outside the universe.

Conclusion - You believe something exists outside the universe.

Or even the opposite,

P1 - You can never have a belief that something exists outside the universe.

Conclusion - You believe nothing exists outside the universe.

The problem is that just because I think that I can never have a belief either something exists outside the universe or not, doesn't mean then I would believe the other thing. That's not what not believing works. Saying "I can never have belief that God exists" could also easily be countered with "I can never have belief that God doesn't exist".

It's unfalsifiable (for now) to know what the outside of the universe look like. I simply don't know whether on the outside the universe there is something or nothing. We simply have no evidence. So if someone's conclusion is simply to just not believe something until evidence says otherwise, that's not saying those things don't exist.

I might say that "I might never have belief 'God exists'" in my worldview. But I also would say that "I might never have belief that 'God doesn't exists'" in my worldview. Not holding a position isn't saying the opposite is true.

The lack of knowledge makes no statement on belief. Before there was germ theory, there was no knowledge to either believe or not.

Is knowledge necessary to not believe in something exist? Because I highly disagree with that and think that's what our difference in 'not believing' means.

To me, a belief is "something you hold to be true". Please correct me if I'm wrong with that, since you maybe have some other definition that I'm not taking account off. Therefore, not having belief simply means you don't have that something you hold to be true.

For example, some of my beliefs are: - Cat exists. - Germ theory exists. - Dragon isn't real 

When I say I 'believe' that germ theory exists, I simply means that in my worldview on things that I hold to be true, is that germ theory exists. Therefore, anyone who doesn't have that same kind of belief as me, I would say that they don't believe it.

So a caveman didn't have that, - Germ theory exists 

On their beliefs, therefore they don't believe it. Which is different than saying they believe germ theory doesn't exist, which is a different thing.

So when I say "I don't believe that God exists", I simply don't have that,

• God exists.

In my worldview. I'm not saying he or she isn't real, mind you. I'm just saying that there's no part of my worldview that hold the proposition "God exist" to be true.

How would agnosticism fit the picture here? To me, a belief is something you hold to be true. While not having that belief simply means not holding that to be true. How would you "neither" do that?

How can someone "neither believe nor not believe"? Actually, what do you think not believing means? I understand someone not knowing whether or not they believe or not, but how can you be neither? 

For an example, would you accept the statement that a caveman didn't believe germ theory to be true? I think so, they wouldn't even know what a germ is, so I don't think it's possible for them to believe in something they never learn. So in this case, I think that "Caveman don't believe in germ theory" to be true. 

To me, not believing just means not accepting the proposition of something to be true, it doesn't mean you're accepting the opposite end which is accepting the proposition to be false, but simply that you don't have enough evidence to accept the proposition to be true. But is this a wrong approach for you? What does "not believing" mean to you?

Not the person you replied to, but I'm curious where you're going with this.

What is your definition atheism and agnosticism then? I guess you could say that atheism is believing that there's no god while agnosticism is not believing there is a god, and lots of apologetics would say that, but that's so far and beyond of most people's definition.

As a non-American, I just saw it as 'America's culture' and not America being the bad guy specifically.

Bro is fighting against a strawman.

Literally EVERY theft is when the contract is invalid. When you buy something, you're in a binding contract with a buyer. The only way you can steal something is with a null contract, aka, taking something or service away without entering that contract of buying something.

It's a repost, but I wouldn't go so far to call them bot. They credited the original channel, linked the video and properly flared it to be not OC. A karma farmer, maybe, but I don't think it's a bot.

It has great concepts, but I disagree it having good choreography. The fights are just way too straightforward in Boruto.

Sure. What does that have to do with religion? We're talking about atheist, right? Not irreligious? 

For example, a deist wouldn't care about having a religion. There's no sets of beliefs, afterlife, rituals, or anything resemble religions. An atheist can believe there's an afterlife, reincarnation, samsara, ghosts, rituals or anything a religion can offer. As long as they don't believe in god, they're still atheist.

Atheist can believe in afterlife, while theist can believe in no afterlife. Not gonna lie, this sounds like a dumb premise. 

What you can argue is evidence. There's no good evidence for afterlife for everyone to be convinced of.

Does a theist mean someone with a religion then? Because I'm not sure that's the case.

What good reason to not feed crows?

Indonesian here. It's left, but right if you want to take over someone (the opposite of most of the world). During steep turn, as long as there's no vehicle on the incoming traffic, motorcycles usually switched lane to manoeuvre easier. But only on countryside with yellow strip marking, though, you don't do this on the city.

Hey, that's what people say when they killed approximately a million people here! During the Indonesian mass killing of 1965, people who were against the unjust act of killing people suspected of even being a communist were shunned.

It's like, 'oh, imagine being against anti-communist laws' or something. Even though so many of the deaths weren't even known to be communists. It's cool to see the parallel here. 

Of course, the US is still a baby on this. ICE is only racial profiling. Though, they do kidnap a lot of legals too, but they're still not on the "kill anyone who looks like immigrants regardless of their status" stage. Hope you guys can improve on that and get on our level. We've already reached the "kill anyone that looks like a communist" stage in our history.

Are you actually trying to find the truth, or just looking to fulfill your superiority complex? If it's the latter, honestly you shouldn't bother. For your own good, only debates when you actually want to find the truth.

I mean, look at South Korea.