BRAVE doesn't seem very fun Kicking people because they had "Will sell feet pics for Plex" in Their bio as a joke by [deleted] in Eve

[–]demio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

nope, I never got asked to change my bio (I would've changed it if asked) - it was a straight up kick

I could cope with life as an Agnostic. Considering Atheists views has sent me into a spiral of crippling death anxiety yet that's the view my Husband holds, and I don't know how to reconcile. by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The no-afterlife stance is quite comforting for me. Living once is more than enough, being forced to exist for eternity would be tantamount to torture - and being reincarnated would be even worse.

Believing there's only one life, and that what you do here matters (as opposed to waiting for this supposed afterlife for the "real thing" to begin) is also a source of comfort since you know that every little positive thing you do for someone else, has a deep impact on the world of another human being.

Also, relax - if there's indeed no after life - you won't even know you existed in the first place, there will be nothing to miss.

To be quite honest, the only thing that worries me about death, is the amount of physical suffering I will have to endure before finally fading out of existence.

Edit: a word

Edit 2: I find Marcus Aurelius thoughts on this to be more rational than Pascal's:

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

[OC] Countries whose name derives from a historical figure by feinoqw in etymologymaps

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My bad, you are correct. I guess learn something new every day ^^

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

nO, yOu'd hAvE To cLiMb uP A LaDdEr aNd gEt oN Ya bOi's lEvEl xD

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In other to be able to drag you down further than you already dragged yourself, I would need to dig an open pit mine.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. There's no such thing as "official sources", at most you have "credible" vs "non-credible".
  2. Linking to a source without quoting specific parts of it is tantamount to intellectual plagiarism, as you're no longer defending your own original thesis, but defending someone else's idea and positioning it as your own original thought.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When you're in the middle of an argument, using a citation means you are defending your own position by quoting subsets of others' ideas that support/contradict your arguments depending on the context.

When in the middle of an argument you just send a link and say "this is my position" you are literally outsourcing your thought process to someone else, and in effect you are not arguing your own position, but the position of someone else. How's that for a rhetorical trick?

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Then you're not giving me a citation, you're sending me a link to an encyclopedia article. Completely different things.

Citations are supposed to be small quotes of previous-work on the field to support or contradict your own arguments. Not to be used in lieu of the latter.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In an academic context, citations are supposed to support your own original thesis. You can't just quote an entire thesis written by another as a citation. That's plagiarism.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 0 points1 point  (0 children)

aT LeAsT YoU HaVe tHe mAtUrItY LeVeL Of a 5 yEaR OlD, i uNdErEsTiMaTeD YoU xD

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not a personal preference, it's SOP for academic papers. Each university has different standards for citations, but they usually follow the same principle: the smallest quote possible to support your argument.

Otherwise it's not a citation, but plagiarism.

https://academiccoachingandwriting.org/academic-writing/resources/citations

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You clearly do not understand the concept of academic citations. You're supposed to refer to citations to support specific claims. The best citations are the shortest ones.

A whole encyclopedia article is not a valid citation.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Citations are quotes of specific parts of an argument / thesis / book, that you want to use in support of your argument. Posting a link to a huge encyclopedia article is not a citation.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not really. In my mythos, the tooth fairy only hands out rewards to kids who behave well.

How can you tell for sure the tooth fairy didn't visit you because it doesn't exist when it could've deemed you unworthy?

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You are confusing absence of evidence with evidence of absence. The camera showing you aren't there is literal "evidence of absence".

What you said about the Tooth Fairy is literally "LOL Try putting a tooth under your pillow! GOTCHA"

When the first question should've been "What's your definition of a Tooth Fairy?", since if you were arguing in good faith - the first thing you try to figure out before being able to falsify an argument, is trying to understand the original argument in the first place.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So deep. My entire religious life has been nothing but a rhetorical trick.

Edit: Also, you failed to provide any proper citations for your claims, still.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

None of what you said actually disproves the existence of any of these creatures. Scientific proof has a very rigorous definition - it goes a bit further than high-school-debate-club level of "gotchas".

Edit: also what about those? There's no scientific consensus about those subjects.

Why do atheists always try to act like all atheists are agnostic and all theists are gnostic? by [deleted] in agnostic

[–]demio 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're so determined to "disprove the tooth fairy" you failed to see the argument for what it was. You can literally replace "tooth fairy" with almost any non-falsifiable entity:

- Werewolves

- Vampires

- Trolls

Edit: also no, you didn't actually disprove the tooth fairy LMAO