Atheists and Theists

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lil bitchiness
There are many reasons why I love visiting this forum, but one of the main ones is that I love the phenomenon of interaction between Atheists and Theists, and how exactly the same they are.

Not just people on this forum, but as a general rule.

Here is a simply summary why Atheists and Theists are behaving in the exactly the same manner.

Theists have this view that Atheists are, lacking in morals, and judgment and are so misguided that they cannot possibly make any moral or rational decisions because they do not believe in God.

Atheists have a similar view on Theists. Athiests view Theists sometimes as stupid and misslead, often immoral because they tend to rely on all answers from a simple book which was written by people who thought that earth was flat.

Many theists think that atheists are fools. Which is fair, because many atheists think that theists are fools as well.

Both, Athiests and Theists are convinced of two things -

1) that they are absolutely right and
2) that the other party is wrong, stupid and mislead.


Here is a fundamental point which more than eviently pictures Atheists being like the Theists -

Atheism is not a religion - you will hear a lot of Atheists say.

But the atheist who prosetylizes and denegrates those who hold that there is a god or gods, has put on the mantle of religion.

He/she is behaving in the same manner as fundamentalist preachers who rant against atheism. He/she has made his atheism his/her religion.

This this leads us to a conclusion, that both are, in theory behaving in the exactly the same manner.

Thoughts?

Lord Urizen
I AGREE.

I think extremism is more dangerous than anything, regardless of what end of the spectrum it comes from.

However, Athiests aren't tying to tell me how to live my life. Thiests are and it's getting really annoying.

Kinneary
You mean atheism and theism are on opposite sides of the same coin? What a thoughtful and original post!

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Kinneary
You mean atheism and theism are on opposite sides of the same coin? What a thoughtful and original post!


I meant extremism itself.

Thiesm and Athiesm, atleast in my mind, are two ends of what's essentially the same thing: A belief system. Thiesm beleives there is a God (or gods) while Athiesm beleives there are no gods.

However, extremism is equally dangerous on both ends. Moderation is key for either side to be successful and at peace.

lord xyz
Yes but Atheists have the upper-hand because we're not trying to prove anything. They are, and fail very badly.

Storm
Atheism is not a belief system for crying out loud.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Storm
Atheism is not a belief system for crying out loud. My atheism as a religion thread puts it best.

lil bitchiness
Storm, I have not said that Atheism is a religion. I have said that Atheist has made Atheism his/her religion.

If anything, agnostics are the ones who can be said that truly have no belief system.

Originally posted by Kinneary
You mean atheism and theism are on opposite sides of the same coin? What a thoughtful and original post!

You lack reading comprehension. Badly.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I AGREE.

I think extremism is more dangerous than anything, regardless of what end of the spectrum it comes from.

However, Athiests aren't tying to tell me how to live my life. Thiests are and it's getting really annoying.

Also, jsut for clarification purposes, since I see noone managed to comprehand what I have written (even though I thought I was farely clear)

I am not arguing about who is better or right, since there cannot be a valid conclusion that there is a God or that there isn't one.

I am saying, the a group of Atheists are institutionalising their belief, just like religious people are, through their behaviour in the matter religious people are behaving.
In another words, it is a spread of ''rightcheousness'' of their school of thought through repetitive strikes at Theists.

This is exactly what Theists do, to Atheists and other Theists.

Storm
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Storm, I have not said that Atheism is a religion. I have said that Atheist has made Atheism his/her religion.

Difference.
I didn' t quote anyone because there' s only one person who spoke of a belief system, so it' s rather self-evident to whom it was directed.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Storm
Atheism is not a belief system for crying out loud.


Yes it is. It's just not a religion.

"I don't beleive God exists".....that simple. I think I was using the term "beleif system" out of context. I don't mean it as a literal system of beleifs, with the rituals, practices, etc. I don't mean to even label it a philosophy either.


But beleif or disbeleif in something still qualifies as two ends of the same thing, atleast the way I see it. Thiesm and Athiesm are both related to the possibility of God's existance. They just differ as to thier stances.

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Storm, I have not said that Atheism is a religion. I have said that Atheist has made Atheism his/her religion. Not true. Chavs are Atheist, and they don't even know wat Atheism is. They know what God is, and don't believe it. So what you said is untrue.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If anything, agnostics are the ones who can be said that truly have no belief system. But they believe anything can be true, right?

ThePittman
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There are many reasons why I love visiting this forum, but one of the main ones is that I love the phenomenon of interaction between Atheists and Theists, and how exactly the same they are.

Not just people on this forum, but as a general rule.

Here is a simply summary why Atheists and Theists are behaving in the exactly the same manner.

Theists have this view that Atheists are, lacking in morals, and judgment and are so misguided that they cannot possibly make any moral or rational decisions because they do not believe in God.

Atheists have a similar view on Theists. Athiests view Theists sometimes as stupid and misslead, often immoral because they tend to rely on all answers from a simple book which was written by people who thought that earth was flat.

Many theists think that atheists are fools. Which is fair, because many atheists think that theists are fools as well.

Both, Athiests and Theists are convinced of two things -

1) that they are absolutely right and
2) that the other party is wrong, stupid and mislead.


Here is a fundamental point which more than eviently pictures Atheists being like the Theists -

Atheism is not a religion - you will hear a lot of Atheists say.

But the atheist who prosetylizes and denegrates those who hold that there is a god or gods, has put on the mantle of religion.

He/she is behaving in the same manner as fundamentalist preachers who rant against atheism. He/she has made his atheism his/her religion.

This this leads us to a conclusion, that both are, in theory behaving in the exactly the same manner.

Thoughts? I agree with some of this to a point but any zealot of any belief system will fall into the same description.

lord xyz
Originally posted by ThePittman
I agree with some of this to a point but any zealot of any belief system will fall into the same description. Agreed.

Gregory
There are people who believe the Earth is round. There are people who believe the Earth is flat. The people who believe that the Earth is round think that the belief that the Earth is flat is stupid--and they're absolutely right. It is stupid. People who believe that the Earth is flat think that the belief that the Earth is round is stupid--and they're absolutely right.

Both atheists and theists believe that they are absolutely right. They're similar in that. But they're also different, because one of the groups is, in fact, absolutely right (I'm not going to take sides in this post by naming the group I think is correct), and one of the groups is absolutely wrong.

If the atheist thinks the theist is being stupid, is he required to respect the theistic view never-the-less? If the theist thinks the atheist is stupid, is he never-the-less required to required to respect the atheistic world view? Why or why not?

If I believe in Santa Clause, should people be required to respect my beliefs? If I don't believe that New York City exists, are people required to respect my disbelief? If people try to point out the errors in my belief or unbelief, and say that I'm an idiot because of course NYC exists and Santa doesn't, have they made these things into their religion? Or are they merely vigerously pointing out something that seems self-evident to them?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Gregory
There are people who believe the Earth is round. There are people who believe the Earth is flat. The people who believe that the Earth is round think that the belief that the Earth is flat is stupid--and they're absolutely right. It is stupid. People who believe that the Earth is flat think that the belief that the Earth is round is stupid--and they're absolutely right.

Both atheists and theists believe that they are absolutely right. They're similar in that. But they're also different, because one of the groups is, in fact, absolutely right (I'm not going to take sides in this post by naming the group I think is correct), and one of the groups is absolutely wrong.

If the atheist thinks the theist is being stupid, is he required to respect the theistic view never-the-less? If the theist thinks the atheist is stupid, is he never-the-less required to required to respect the atheistic world view? Why or why not?

If I believe in Santa Clause, should people be required to respect my beliefs? If I don't believe that New York City exists, are people required to respect my disbelief? If people try to point out the errors in my belief or unbelief, and say that I'm an idiot because of course NYC exists and Santa doesn't, have they made these things into their religion? Or are they merely vigerously pointing out something that seems self-evident to them?




Good Point , but you are forgetting one thing: Belief and knowledge are two different things.

Knowledge is based on facts or in the least valid experience with the object of discussion.

Belief is simply beleif....You can't literally say, "I beleive New York City exists"....because you KNOW New York City exists. There is nothing to beleive. It's proven, it is undeniable, it's fact.


When you beleive in something you do not know it to be true. You may claim you do, but unless you have factual reason to make that claim, it is only beleif and not yet fact.




Athiests beleive that God does not exist. There beleif is CONCRETE. Agnostics are the only people who are realistic in the sense that they admit they DO NOT KNOW....

Athiests and Thiests have the same issue....they claim they know the TRUTH....most of them do not even claim it is thier beleif, but try to pass off thier beleif as FACT.

There are ZEALOUS Athiests the same way there are Zealous Thiests. OMG...google it...there's an Athiest camp dedicated to children whose parents do NOT beleive in God, and do not want to be bothered with the beleif in God.

LIL B is right in the sense that many Athiests have turned standard Athiesm into thier own little religion.

debbiejo
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
There are many reasons why I love visiting this forum, but one of the main ones is that I love the phenomenon of interaction between Atheists and Theists, and how exactly the same they are.

Not just people on this forum, but as a general rule.

Here is a simply summary why Atheists and Theists are behaving in the exactly the same manner.

Theists have this view that Atheists are, lacking in morals, and judgment and are so misguided that they cannot possibly make any moral or rational decisions because they do not believe in God.

Atheists have a similar view on Theists. Athiests view Theists sometimes as stupid and misslead, often immoral because they tend to rely on all answers from a simple book which was written by people who thought that earth was flat.

Many theists think that atheists are fools. Which is fair, because many atheists think that theists are fools as well.

Both, Athiests and Theists are convinced of two things -

1) that they are absolutely right and
2) that the other party is wrong, stupid and mislead.


Here is a fundamental point which more than eviently pictures Atheists being like the Theists -

Atheism is not a religion - you will hear a lot of Atheists say.

But the atheist who prosetylizes and denegrates those who hold that there is a god or gods, has put on the mantle of religion.

He/she is behaving in the same manner as fundamentalist preachers who rant against atheism. He/she has made his atheism his/her religion.

This this leads us to a conclusion, that both are, in theory behaving in the exactly the same manner.

Thoughts? I see it the same way. Both feel they are right without a reason of a doubt, which cannot be proved. Though if one is talking about a god as in a man, based on myths, then of course there is no such deity, but to say some sort of force/Spirit/influence is something all together different. There is a difference.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Theists have this view that Atheists are, lacking in morals, and judgment and are so misguided that they cannot possibly make any moral or rational decisions because they do not believe in God.

Atheists have a similar view on Theists. Athiests view Theists sometimes as stupid and misslead, often immoral because they tend to rely on all answers from a simple book which was written by people who thought that earth was flat.

Hmmm. Well, I don't view Theists in such a way. My argument usually goes - Atheists, and people in general don't need a God to do good. An Atheists is just as capable of living a happy, fulfilling and good life as a Theist.

Because that tack has always annoyed me - "Teach evolution and you are on your way to a state of anarchy where life is without value or meaning." And I don't think Theists are immoral - since the average Theist is usually very moral, in fact morality is one of the main strays of religion - though this can lead to questions of hypocrasy, since there are tremendous theists who say one thing and do another. Of course the argument that morals are set in stone and without change, or only possible in a holy text is problamatic - man is moral, not religion.



Well, according to the writings of at least one member on the board he is justified in calling anyone who disagrees a fool because Biblically "fool" apparently means one who is morally wayward and without Jesus in their lives (since the two go hand in hand.) Admittedly when a foolish argument is used I will comment as such - and unfortunately my education up to this point tends to dislike circular arguments (we all know the kind.)



Not true on the stupid or misled part (well, not for me) though I admit some of the Theists arguments I have seen are questionable, especially those in areas such as creationism where debunked pseudosciences are paraded as the executioners of evolution, or the unquestionable truth in their claims.

Of course I have conviction that I am on the right path, and I like to think it is rational, scientific and logical. I have no problem with religion, and I am happy for others to worship as they see fit (and I am a fan of Buddhism and Hinduism.) But when someone says "this is the truth and you are foolish to ignore it" then I will debate such a claim, while being open minded to the possibility I am wrong. Of course I ask for a level of evidence, if my arguments have to be judged by the amount of evidence I have to support them I see no reason I theist (or atheist) should get a "win an argument free card" by saying things like "evidence can't prove faith" or "it would only make sense if you saw with the eyes of the holy spirit."



Or politics or education or philosophy.



Some, at any rate. It is correct for some - their are Atheists who are just as guilty of irrational and terribly biased dislike of religion who attack it the way some theists attack other faiths. However there are also Atheists who operate from a sociological view, a philosophical one, and educational one who believe their is sufficient logical reason to attempt to convert theists to Atheism or Agnosticism (think The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins) whose approach to the debate is about as far from Theological evangelism as it can get. To be honest most Atheists I know don't have any great aspirations or even desire to attack religion, and will only express their views on it when faced with a Theist who claims "this is the truth, repent or face hell."

Alliance
The ironic part about Lil's argument is that the many Ancient Greeks actually thought the earth was round and proved it using obersvable stellar evidence.

The Christian empires ignored this school of thought. They wanted to stick to their "four corners" as stated in the bible.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
The ironic part about Lil's argument is that the many Ancient Greeks actually thought the earth was round and proved it using obersvable stellar evidence.

The Christian empires ignored this school of thought. They wanted to stick to their "four corners" as stated in the bible.
They also didn't know about gravity, so it was entirely logical.

Alliance
That comment makes no sense at all to me.

Nellinator
Its in reference to the belief that the world was flat. I shouldn't have quoted the whole post on second thought.

Alliance
Ok, then you have a clear misunterstanding of the conception of gravity.

Nellinator
How so?

xmarksthespot
And again people fail to realise the difference between weak and strong atheism.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Alliance
The ironic part about Lil's argument is that the many Ancient Greeks actually thought the earth was round and proved it using obersvable stellar evidence.

The Christian empires ignored this school of thought. They wanted to stick to their "four corners" as stated in the bible.
Not sure I understand what you mean?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And again people fail to realise the difference between weak and strong atheism.


How does that at all influence my argument?! Weak atheism, or strong atheism are both based on the same assumption as theism.

Atheism ONLY exists in relation to Theism, and not any other way. Athism is not ''by default'' and be it weak or strong, it bases its argument on the exactly the same principle as Theists, in the matter that both of their arguments are not particulary scientific, and both are assumptions based on zero evidence.

Agnostics, I would argue, are ''by default''. Since they claim no knowledge, which technically is where we are all at - no knowledge. Of course no knowledge does not mean non existance, at the same time as it most certainly does not mean existance.

Athiest view is, putting it basically, based on EXACTLY THE SAME assumption as Theism is. It has no ground, nor validity for what it is saying. Same as Theism.

Having that in mind, what is even more irnoic is that certain Atheists, behaive in such a way, that they are claiming superiority over Theists, including ridicule, because they believe in a Deity (just look through this forum), while their claim, is just as baseless as Theists'.

xmarksthespot
Atheism is a lack of belief in a supernatural deity, either because one decides that available evidence positively indicates there are no deities nor can they exist, or that based on available evidence there is no foundation for a belief in a supernatural deity; strong and weak atheism respectively. The latter does not draw absolute conclusion, and does not fall under your description of atheistic views.

The problem with your argument is that you are essentially comparing unlike things. Atheism exists as the counterpart to theism in general. However while atheism and agnosticism on these forums are essentially generic, the form theism takes on these forums and in the wider world is in specifics. Generic theism which could be compared to generic atheism or agnosticism is a rarity.

I think you're misperceiving the agnostic/atheist dismissal of claims by the major organised religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc. as an antagonism of the concept of generic theism and an assertion of atheism as absolute truth.

While one cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god. One can, based on available evidence and knowledge, rationally conclude that the gods as described in religious texts by ancient cultures did not exist as described. Such a claim is not "baseless".

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Atheism is a lack of belief in a supernatural deity, either because one decides that available evidence positively indicates there are no deities nor can they exist, or that based on available evidence there is no foundation for a belief in a supernatural deity; strong and weak atheism respectively. The latter does not draw absolute conclusion, and does not fall under your description of atheistic views.

The problem with your argument is that you are essentially comparing unlike things. Atheism exists as the counterpart to theism in general. However while atheism and agnosticism on these forums are essentially generic, the form theism takes on these forums and in the wider world is in specifics. Generic theism which could be compared to generic atheism or agnosticism is a rarity.

I think you're misperceiving the agnostic/atheist dismissal of claims by the major organised religions, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc. as an antagonism of the concept of generic theism and an assertion of atheism as absolute truth.

While one cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god. One can, based on available evidence and knowledge, rationally conclude that the gods as described in religious texts by ancient cultures did not exist as described. Such a claim is not "baseless".

Addressing your point about the ''unlike things'' - i disagree.

The way in which they both rationalise existence or non existence of a deity is exactly the same.

I know why Atheists believe what they believe, my argument is that their belief is based on exactly the same ''unscientific'' method as theists'.

It is false to claim that there are or that there are no 'evidence' against or for Deity, simply because there is no knowledge of such being.
Having no knowledge of something, does not make it non existent, nor does it make existent.


Initially, Atheists are arguing at the irrationality of Theist view, while their view is just as irrational.
They are arguing that there are no sufficient evidence to prove something, which they, or anyone else for that matter, has no knowledge of to begin with.

It is an egocentric view that if we have not gained a knowledge in some field by now, it must not exist.
Thus, Athiest view is just as irrational, and just as egocentric as Theists.

xmarksthespot
I consider myself somewhere between an weak atheist and agnostic. I personally don't recall arguing against a general theist view per se. I personally can't say I recall anyone else who would describe themself as an atheist or agnostic arguing against a theist view per se. I have however, for example, argued against specific Judeo-Christian theist views presented as fact, based upon scientific or rational deduction.

(Notwithstanding that atheism is predominantly an independent choice and doesn't generally promote itself as fact, or promote itself at all) It is true - it would be ironic to assert strong atheism as fact, while dismissing a generalised theistic view, as neither can be proven as such due to insufficient information. It would not however be ironic to dismiss a man being the son of god, transmuting water into wine, walking on water, dying and being resurrected, and ascending into heaven. While the latter may be relatively common on the religion forum, the former is not particularly from my recollection, and I'm not sure you're drawing this distinction.

lil bitchiness
If asked myself, I would possibly deny existance of a Mainstream God. If a deity indeed exists, I doubt it would be a sadistic ego centric deity who takes interest in our sex lives.

I do not however take out the idea that a deity may exit.

I am not technically point out to people who acknowledge the idea that we have no knowledge, but people who are Atheists, and who believe (no pun intended) that there is no deity based on the lack of evidence.

Of course, there are people on this board who do not for the profile of the Athiests I talk about.

It was a subject which I tought about a lot, and seeing one, or more topic triggered me to start a thread.

Lord Urizen
Being Athiest doesn't narrow down to a having a non-beleif in Christian-Judeo God.

True Athiests beleive in no supernatural diety, whether it be mainstream God or any concept of a God, intelligent creator, or primitive creator what-so-ever.

"Athiests by default" is not a complete or accurate description of someone who has never been fully exposed to the concept of a God and therefore cannot make an opinion on the matter.

LIL B is correct in her stance that Thiesm and Athiesm are both two sides of the same concept of God. One beleives completely, one disbeleives completely. Thiesm and Athiesm are BOTH relationships to the concept of dieties.

Agnosticism is the only perception that is truly indifferent to the matter. Agnostics do not claim they know God exists or that they know God doesn't exist. They simply say "I don't know, there could be, there could be not"....many others say "I don't know, i don't care"


Saying "Yes" or "No" are two absolutes of the matter, and therefore zealotry can be equally prevelant in both Athiesm and Thiesm. But saying "maybe" is not absolute, it is indifferent, and therefore no zealotry can form from it, because no extremism or solid belief is planted down.

lord xyz
Don't my posts here get commented anymore?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Not true. Chavs are Atheist, and they don't even know wat Atheism is. They know what God is, and don't believe it. So what you said is untrue.
But they believe anything can be true, right?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
Don't my posts here get commented anymore?


no

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Being Athiest doesn't narrow down to a having a non-beleif in Christian-Judeo God.

True Athiests beleive in no supernatural diety, whether it be mainstream God or any concept of a God, intelligent creator, or primitive creator what-so-ever.

"Athiests by default" is not a complete or accurate description of someone who has never been fully exposed to the concept of a God and therefore cannot make an opinion on the matter.

LIL B is correct in her stance that Thiesm and Athiesm are both two sides of the same concept of God. One beleives completely, one disbeleives completely. Thiesm and Athiesm are BOTH relationships to the concept of dieties.

Agnosticism is the only perception that is truly indifferent to the matter. Agnostics do not claim they know God exists or that they know God doesn't exist. They simply say "I don't know, there could be, there could be not"....many others say "I don't know, i don't care"


Saying "Yes" or "No" are two absolutes of the matter, and therefore zealotry can be equally prevelant in both Athiesm and Thiesm. But saying "maybe" is not absolute, it is indifferent, and therefore no zealotry can form from it, because no extremism or solid belief is planted down. As is the case with most blanket generalisations, not true. Neither atheism nor theism need be intuitively characterized by complete and intractable belief.

To claim no knowledge is not mutually exclusive to claiming a belief or lack thereof. Nor are the latter incompatible with indifference. One can hold the view "I don't really know, I think that there could be a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way." or "I don't know, I think there isn't a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way."; and these would be theist and atheist views respectively.

Zealotry is more prevalent in organised theism i.e. the major religions, due to it's nature - esoteric, a collective practise, ability to be used as excuse for prejudice etc. Advent of more agressive atheist stances, are more reaction to attempt by religious institutions to interfere in politics and science than anything else.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
As is the case with most blanket generalisations, not true. Neither atheism nor theism need be intuitively characterized by complete and intractable belief.

True.

But you forget the difference between the definitions of Athiests and Agnostics.

Athiests do not beleive God exists.

Agnostics beleive he may or may not.

Any Thiest or Athiest who sees thier beliefs only as beleifs, and is open to the possibility that they may be wrong, is by "default" Agnostic in belief.




Originally posted by xmarksthespot
To claim no knowledge is not mutually exclusive to claiming a belief or lack thereof. Nor are the latter incompatible with indifference. One can hold the view "I don't really know, I think that there could be a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way." or "I don't know, I think there isn't a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way."; and these would be theist and atheist views respectively.


I disagree.

Thiests do not say "I thnk God exists, but who cares"..they either claim strong beleif, or knowledge.

Likewise, Athiests do not go "I don't thnk God exists, but even if he does, I wouldn't care"

But definition, these people are Agnostic. Agnosticism is the open mindedness that allows for the possibility of either argument.

Athiesm and Theism may not always be extreme, but they each possess a one sided bias, and a contradicting opinion towards the other.

An Agnostic, to any degree, is still open to the possibility of either hypothesis, regardless of what they prefer to beleive.



Question: Would you call a person who has never even heard of the concept of God, an Athiest ?




Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Zealotry is more prevalent in organised theism i.e. the major religions, due to it's nature - esoteric, a collective practise, ability to be used as excuse for prejudice etc. Advent of more agressive atheist stances, are more reaction to attempt by religious institutions to interfere in politics and science than anything else.



But Zealotry exists on both sides nonetheless. It just happens to be much GREATER and more common in Theism.

xmarksthespot
Agnosticism and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive stances. erm

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
no Liar.

Bardock42
Okay, like, I don't want to get involved, though x-spot is right. But, for the love of God/No One/Someone that may or may not exist, could you folks (mainly LU and lb...must be the "L" part me thinks) try to spell it "atheism"? I feel a severe pain every time I have to read "athiest" ... hmm, if you want to imagine the feeling think about lying in your bed...with someone you really love....and then being beaten to death with a club heated to 600 degrees Celsius...twice.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, like, I don't want to get involved, though x-spot is right. But, for the love of God/No One/Someone that may or may not exist, could you folks (mainly LU and lb...must be the "L" part me thinks) try to spell it "atheism"? I feel a severe pain every time I have to read "athiest" ... hmm, if you want to imagine the feeling think about lying in your bed...with someone you really love....and then being beaten to death with a club heated to 600 degrees Celsius...twice. I know how you feel, once I read it as "Aetheism" it was like talking to a baby. no expression

xmarksthespot
Hmm I actually didn't notice how many times people had spelt it "athiest" until I looked now. A lot.

lord xyz
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hmm I actually didn't notice how many times people had spelt it "athiest" until I looked now. A lot. Mee to. When I looked at the thread again, I thought my spelling of "Atheist" was wrong!

Strangelove
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If anything, agnostics are the ones who can be said that truly have no belief system. Go agnostics! w00t

lord xyz
Agnostics have the belief sysem that anything is possible, so lil b is wrong.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, like, I don't want to get involved, though x-spot is right. But, for the love of God/No One/Someone that may or may not exist, could you folks (mainly LU and lb...must be the "L" part me thinks) try to spell it "atheism"? I feel a severe pain every time I have to read "athiest" ... hmm, if you want to imagine the feeling think about lying in your bed...with someone you really love....and then being beaten to death with a club heated to 600 degrees Celsius...twice.

Considering that my spelling mistakes for most part are a result of fast typing, your point has nevertheless been acknowledged, so uless you have something to contribute to the discussion, be gone..please...for the love of God/No None/ Someone...

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by lord xyz
Agnostics have the belief sysem that anything is possible, so lil b is wrong.

By that ''logic'' (which is permanently inconstant) so do Atheists, because they ''believe'' that there is no Deity.

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
By that ''logic'' (which is permanently inconstant) so do Atheists, because they ''believe'' that there is no Deity. It's the logic you're using. The logic you used to start this thread, making you contradict yourself.

Strangelove
Originally posted by lord xyz
Agnostics have the belief sysem that anything is possible, so lil b is wrong. Actually, agnostics believe that no ultimate truth can be proven. Like: shit happens, and no one knows why, and it doesn't really matter.

Not exactly a belief system

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by lord xyz
It's the logic you're using. The logic you used to start this thread, making you contradict yourself.

Please exaplain how am I contrdicting myself? Do you have a reading comprehantion problem?

Atheist argumet of non-existance of God is just as irrational as Theist argument that there is one. To put it down REALLY simply for you.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Considering that my spelling mistakes for most part are a result of fast typing, your point has nevertheless been acknowledged, so uless you have something to contribute to the discussion, be gone..please...for the love of God/No None/ Someone...

Accepted. But just to clarify it was not to attack either of you. I know I make mistakes myself. I just think it is the fair thing to ask someone to watch it, instead of starting to hate each time they post.

So for the discussion.

It is pretty easy. You do not have to believe you are 100% right to be either an atheist or a theist. So the point is wrong. Nothing more to say actually. Of course they have similarities. There are theist that are radical and sure of their believes as there are atheists. But to generalize in a way as this thread did, does not apply to reality.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Strangelove
Actually, agnostics believe that no ultimate truth can be proven. Like: shit happens, and no one knows why, and it doesn't really matter.

Not exactly a belief system

Wich is the only rational conclusion one can come to relating Deity, particulary since we have no knowledge.
Thus, like you said, no ultimate truth can be proven.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Wich is the only rational conclusion one can come to relating Deity, particulary since we have no knowledge.
Thus, like you said, no ultimate truth can be proven.

I agree. Agnosticism is reasonable. But to hold a believe that God does not exist even though we can't be sure does not contradict it. Neither does believing in a God or Gods.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Accepted. But just to clarify it was not to attack either of you. I know I make mistakes myself. I just think it is the fair thing to ask someone to watch it, instead of starting to hate each time they post.

So for the discussion.

It is pretty easy. You do not have to believe you are 100% right to be either an atheist or a theist. So the point is wrong. Nothing more to say actually. Of course they have similarities. There are theist that are radical and sure of their believes as there are atheists. But to generalize in a way as this thread did, does not apply to reality.

That would then be called agnostic, who from my impression, Strangelove might be.

Agnostic is the one which claims no knowledge, and accepts that either way can't be proven.

Atheists do not accept possibility of existance of deity. If they did, they wouldn't be atheists, but agnostics.

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Please exaplain how am I contrdicting myself? Do you have a reading comprehantion problem?

Atheist argumet of non-existance of God is just as irrational as Theist argument that there is one. To put it down REALLY simply for you. *sigh*

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
If anything, agnostics are the ones who can be said that truly have no belief system.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
By that ''logic'' (which is permanently inconstant) so do Atheists, because they ''believe'' that there is no Deity. Here you are saying I am right because my logic proves something you said earlier.

This is a contradiction, if you fail to see that, I feel sorry for you.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree. Agnosticism is reasonable. But to hold a believe that God does not exist even though we can't be sure does not contradict it. Neither does believing in a God or Gods.

Perhaps not as a personal belief. ''I don't thnk it exists, but it might'' would be a reasonable argument.

However, Atheism as an idea is based on the belief that there is no god or gods, not the possibility that there might not be any.

Do they also not cite the lack of evidence pointing to existance of God?

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That would then be called agnostic, who from my impression, Strangelove might be.

Agnostic is the one which claims no knowledge, and accepts that either way can't be proven.

Atheists do not accept possibility of existance of deity. If they did, they wouldn't be atheists, but agnostics.

Yes it would be called agnostic. As well as atheist. It is both. Since those two believes are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostic is actually a person that does claim one of the three: That the existance of God is unknown, cannot be known or is irrelevant for our lifes.

Atheists can accept the possibility of a God. But do not believe in it. Similar to me not believing in flying pigs, although I do not deny that the possibility exists.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. That is a fact.

Strangelove
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That would then be called agnostic, who from my impression, Strangelove might be.Your impression is correct yes

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Perhaps not as a personal belief. ''I don't thnk it exists, but it might'' would be a reasonable argument.

However, Atheism as an idea is based on the belief that there is no god or gods, not the possibility that there might not be any.

Do they also not cite the lack of evidence pointing to existance of God? No Atheism is the denial of God because they see no logic in believing in it. Atheism is not something that's taught, nor is it pushed on people like theism. Atheism is natural, theism isn't.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by lord xyz
*sigh*



Here you are saying I am right because my logic proves something you said earlier.

This is a contradiction, if you fail to see that, I feel sorry for you.

Agnostics claim no knowledge. It is the only reasonable conclusion which does not reply on 'assumptions' or 'belief'

Both of which Atheists and Theists are.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Perhaps not as a personal belief. ''I don't thnk it exists, but it might'' would be a reasonable argument.

However, Atheism as an idea is based on the belief that there is no god or gods, not the possibility that there might not be any.

Do they also not cite the lack of evidence pointing to existance of God?

Atheists do often use the lack of evidence to support their believe that there is no God. Most of them would not deny the possibility though.

Agnosticism is concerned with what can be known.

Atheism with the existance of a God.

You can believe that it is not known and believe that God does not exist.

Just in case anyone is wondering. I am an agnostic myself.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes it would be called agnostic. As well as atheist. It is both. Since those two believes are not mutually exclusive.

Agnostic is actually a person that does claim one of the three: That the existance of God is unknown, cannot be known or is irrelevant for our lifes.

Atheists can accept the possibility of a God. But do not believe in it. Similar to me not believing in flying pigs, although I do not deny that the possibility exists.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. That is a fact. Originally posted by lord xyz
No Atheism is the denial of God because they see no logic in believing in it. Atheism is not something that's taught, nor is it pushed on people like theism. Atheism is natural, theism isn't.

You two just contradicted each other, while trying to convince me that I am wrong.

One said ''Atheists can accept the possibility of a God''
and the other
'' Atheism is the denial of God''

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You two just contradicted each other, while trying to convince me that I am wrong.

One said ''Atheists can accept the possibility of a God''
and the other
'' Atheism is the denial of God''

I do not care for what xyz says. He is not me. I stand by my definition as it is the correct one.

Though you do not understand. I agree with both. Atheism is the denial of God. Atheists can also accept the possibility. It is no contradiction.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Agnostics claim no knowledge. It is the only reasonable conclusion which does not reply on 'assumptions' or 'belief'

Both of which Atheists and Theists are.

This in not quite true. Obvioulsy agnosticism is also based on assumptions. Though I grant it seems more reasonable.

Strangelove
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

agnostic: a person who asserts the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Agnostics do not believe anything.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
I do not care for what xyz says. He is not me. I stand by my definition as it is the correct one.

Though you do not understand. I agree with both. Atheism is the denial of God. Atheists can also accept the possibility. It is no contradiction.



This in not quite true. Obvioulsy agnosticism is also based on assumptions. Though I grant it seems more reasonable.

How is agnosticism based on assumption? Assumption of what?

Agnostics claim no knowledge - thats not an assumption, thats a fact.

And as far as Atheism goes - please provide me a link, or some kind which confirms that Atheists accept possibility of god.

AS far as I heave researched, Wiki and dictionaries the very deffinition of Atheist is a ''doctrine of NON existance of God''.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Same goes for Wiki.

You can make up your own interpretation, those however are not what the actual definition or the doctrine is about.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Strangelove
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

agnostic: a person who asserts the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Agnostics do not believe anything.

We are talking about religious agnostics I believe. But it does not matter. Int his case it is synonymous with skepticism. Are you implying that an atheist can not be a skeptic?

I believe that nothing in the world can be known for sure.
But I also believe that there is no God. I believe that I exist. I believe that the chair in my room is red. I do not know those things. I don't think they can be known. but I believe them to be true.

Do you now understand the difference between the two? And why they can both apply?

The last sentence is wrong. Since Agnostics obviously believe that nothing can be known.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Strangelove
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

agnostic: a person who asserts the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Agnostics do not believe anything. If by what your saying is true, then I am Agnostic.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Atheists can accept the possibility of a God.

Bardoc says other-wise.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Strangelove
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

agnostic: a person who asserts the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Agnostics do not believe anything.

thumb up Differance.

Storm
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism is quite simply "not believing in any gods." Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods, making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by lord xyz
If by what your saying is true, then I am Agnostic.

I thought you might have been.

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
thumb up Differance. spelt wrong!

Originally posted by Storm
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism is quite simply "not believing in any gods." Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism.

There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods, making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Now it looks like I am a strong Atheist. Cool I guess.

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I thought you might have been. But that's saying Atheism doesn't exist. If the dibelief of GOd isn't Atheism or the denial of gods existing isn't atheism, then what is?

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
How is agnosticism based on assumption? Assumption of what?

Agnostics claim no knowledge - thats not an assumption, thats a fact.

And as far as Atheism goes - please provide me a link, or some kind which confirms that Atheists accept possibility of god.

AS far as I heave researched, Wiki and dictionaries the very deffinition of Atheist is a ''doctrine of NON existance of God''.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism Same goes for Wiki.

You can make up your own interpretation, those however are not what the actual definition or the doctrine is about.

Assumption that there can't be any knowledge. Are people not thinking their believes through anymore? I am agnostic and because I am agnostic I think that agnosticism is based on believe not fact.


Yes, you believe that there is no God. You do not know that there is no God. How can you not understand this fundamental difference? Also, read the link you posted. A few sentences in there it says how Agnostics are included.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by lord xyz
But that's saying Atheism doesn't exist. If the dibelief of GOd isn't Atheism or the denial of gods existing isn't atheism, then what is?

What? Oh Jesus, how does that say Atheism does not exist?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Assumption that there can't be any knowledge. Are people not thinking their believes through anymore? I am agnostic and because I am agnostic I think that agnosticism is based on believe not fact.


Yes, you believe that there is no God. You do not know that there is no God. How can you not understand this fundamental difference? Also, read the link you posted. A few sentences in there it says how Agnostics are included.

Agnostics claim that there IS no knowledge, not that there can never be any.
And there is NO knowledge. So it is not an assumption, its a fact.


The article says that Atheists are designating Agnostics, people who have never heard of gods and new born children. They are, in the scope of the sentence indicating Agnostics and new born children as those who do not hold the idea of God...I believe.

As far as the article goes on to say it divides Atheists around, as those who reject the idea of God, those who simply do not believe in it, although article on ''weak theism and strong theism'' is ''not reliable.

Victor Von Doom
I always found it weird to designate one's attitude as atheist.

Etymologically, anyway. Although that's probably a bit too much effort for most: better to just decided your whole existence corresponds to a random word.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Agnostics claim that there IS no knowledge, not that there can never be any.
And there is NO knowledge. So it is not an assumption, its a fact.


The article says that Atheists are designating Agnostics, people who have never heard of gods and new born children. They are, in the scope of the sentence indicating Agnostics and new born children as those who do not hold the idea of God...I believe.

As far as the article goes on to say it divides Atheists around, as those who reject the idea of God, those who simply do not believe in it, although article on ''weak theism and strong theism'' is ''not reliable.

They claim either that there is no knowledge at the momenht or that there never can be any. Can be both. Either way an agnostic can also be a theist or atheist.

The point is Atheists can be Agnostics and the other way around. That's just how it is.

What is your point?

lil bitchiness
It is not, actually.
Atheism and Agnosticism are two different concepts.

To suspend belief on a subject (of God, here) is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism.

It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered, ie GOD.
This is something atheists do not do by definition, but agnostics do.

Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired, ie No knowledge.

Atheists do not ''suspend belief'' in God. They deny it.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It is not, actually.
Atheism and Agnosticism are two different concepts.

To suspend belief on a subject (of God, here) is to hold off judgment until more information is acquired. This is agnosticism, not atheism.

It is an admission that not all information is acquired thus logically requiring the possibility of the existence of the thing being considered, ie GOD.
This is something atheists do not do by definition, but agnostics do.

Agnosticism is the position, in part, that "suspension of belief" is maintained until further information is acquired, ie No knowledge.

Atheists do not ''suspend belief'' in God. They deny it.

Yes. Two different concepts. Kinda like shape and colour. They can be in the same thing. They do not explain the same things.

That is your, wrong, definition. The actual definition is that an agnostic believes that there is no proof for or against the existence of God (at the moment or forever). If from the lack of proof they decide to believe in a God, no God or decide not to make a statement is of no matter to agnosticism

Please. Why do we argue about that? I am absolutely right, and you can even read it in links you posted.

People can be agnostics and atheists. That is all to it.

ThePittman

Up In Flames
Well, allow me to say that aetheists reject God because they know that they will have to stop whatever sinful activity they indulge in based on the ten commandments.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. Two different concepts. Kinda like shape and colour. They can be in the same thing. They do not explain the same things.

That is your, wrong, definition. The actual definition is that an agnostic believes that there is no proof for or against the existence of God (at the moment or forever). If from the lack of proof they decide to believe in a God, no God or decide not to make a statement is of no matter to agnosticism

Please. Why do we argue about that? I am absolutely right, and you can even read it in links you posted.

People can be agnostics and atheists. That is all to it.

Ha. Of course the link I posted also says that Atheists point out Agnostics, new born babies and people who have never heard about God, as possible Atheists.

This is even stupider to consider, since new born babies and people who have never heard about God, do not have a concept of God, and thus are not Atheists.

My bad for posting that link.

To call oneself atheist is to not believe in God, to call oneself agnostic is not to know.

Agnosticism itself means no knowledge.

How complex is that?!

You can be both? Right, of course, just like you can call yourself a communist country and be under dictatorship. Its like Communist Dictatorship!

...

Either way, this is just going in circles.

Any belief of ''god does not exist'' is jsut as irrational and baseless as ''god does exist''.

Up In Flames
Originally posted by lord xyz
Now it looks like I am a strong Atheist. Cool I guess.



So you think its cool, huh? I assure you, you 're gonna look back on your life one day and wish you hadnt been so ignorant.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ha. Of course the link I posted also says that Atheists point out Agnostics, new born babies and people who have never heard about God, as possible Atheists.

This is even stupider to consider, since new born babies and people who have never heard about God, do not have a concept of God, and thus are not Atheists.

My bad for posting that link.

To call oneself atheist is to not believe in God, to call oneself agnostic is not to know.

Agnosticism itself means no knowledge.

How complex is that?!

You can be both? Right, of course, just like you can call yourself a communist country and be under dictatorship. Its like Communist Dictatorship!

...

Either way, this is just going in circles.

Any belief of ''god does not exist'' is jsut as irrational and baseless as ''god does exist''. "Fairies do not exist". Is this belief jsut (sic) as irrational and baseless as "fairies do exist."?

And again agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

ThePittman

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Up In Flames
Well, allow me to say that aetheists reject God because they know that they will have to stop whatever sinful activity they indulge in based on the ten commandments. The only thing holding you back from committing misdemeanors or felonies is an old book...? Frankly this reflects more on you than anyone else.

Up In Flames

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Fairies do not exist". Is this belief jsut (sic) as irrational and baseless as "fairies do exist."?

And again agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

You know, there are people who believe in those. Wiccan site.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is, if you want, by default.

I would claim agnosticism in regards to fairy story.

Up In Flames
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The only thing holding you back from committing misdemeanors or felonies is an old book...? Frankly this reflects more on you than anyone else.


Its more like being led in the right direction than being held back. Yes, my will to act morally in order is based on the teachings and standards set by my saviour, Jesus Christ.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ha. Of course the link I posted also says that Atheists point out Agnostics, new born babies and people who have never heard about God, as possible Atheists.

This is even stupider to consider, since new born babies and people who have never heard about God, do not have a concept of God, and thus are not Atheists.

My bad for posting that link.

To call oneself atheist is to not believe in God, to call oneself agnostic is not to know.

Agnosticism itself means no knowledge.

How complex is that?!

You can be both? Right, of course, just like you can call yourself a communist country and be under dictatorship. Its like Communist Dictatorship!

...

Either way, this is just going in circles.

Any belief of ''god does not exist'' is jsut as irrational and baseless as ''god does exist''.

See, the problem is that you do not understand the terms atheism and agnosticism. You also do not understand what follows from the definitions. It is rather pointless to argue with you, since you want to stick to your false believe that atheism and agnosticism are exlusive.


And no, Neither of those believes is irrational. Baseless maybe. But Atheism as well as Theism are rational possibilities. There is also no doubt about that.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You know, there are people who believe in those. Wiccan site.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is, if you want, by default.

I would claim agnosticism in regards to fairy story. Unicorns. Goblins. Trolls. Santa. The Tooth Fairy. And the Easter Bunny. Not believing in those is as irrational as believing in them?

If you agree that they're not mutually exclusive then why have you been arguing that they are?

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Unicorns. Goblins. Trolls. Santa. The Tooth Fairy. And the Easter Bunny. Not believing in those is as irrational as believing in them?

If you agree that they're not mutually exclusive then why have you been arguing that they are?
You will tell me that trolls do not exist based on...what? That there are no evidence of troll, or on the fact that you have never seen one, or on the fact that it is impossible that one could exist.

It is also a terrible example. Santa Claus was made for a purpose of fiction.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not on the oppsite side of the spectrum. I ever said that. But they are different.

One claims no knowldge, and the other claims that something does not exist due to lack of evidence, or that there is nothing which indicates God's existance.

One claims not knowledge, and thus impossibility of obtaining evidence, the other claims no existance due to lack of evidence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
See, the problem is that you do not understand the terms atheism and agnosticism. You also do not understand what follows from the definitions. It is rather pointless to argue with you, since you want to stick to your false believe that atheism and agnosticism are exlusive.


And no, Neither of those believes is irrational. Baseless maybe. But Atheism as well as Theism are rational possibilities. There is also no doubt about that.

Rational possibilities, yes. It is a possibility, of course!

What is irrational is to claim the truth on each of those.

To claim the truth that there is no God based on the lack of evidence, or that there is one based on the lack of evidence that there isn't one.

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What? Oh Jesus, how does that say Atheism does not exist?
If I'm not Atheist whothe hell is? Some ******* who treats theism the sameway theists treat atheism? Or someone who preaches the non-existance of god?

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You will tell me that trolls do not exist based on...what? That there are no evidence of troll, or on the fact that you have never seen one, or on the fact that it is impossible that one could exist.

Atheism and Agnosticism are not on the oppsite side of the spectrum. I ever said that. But they are different.

Once claims no knowldge, and the other claims that something does not exist due to lack of evidence, or that there is nothing which indicates God's existance.So you claim agnosticism on unicorns. Goblins. Trolls. Santa. The Tooth Fairy. And the Easter Bunny? no expression

You've been implying a mutual exclusivity in saying one cannot be both an agnostic and an atheist or theist. That is not true. You're making generalisations.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Rational possibilities, yes. It is a possibility, of course!

What is irrational is to claim the truth on each of those.

To claim the truth that there is no God based on the lack of evidence, or that there is one based on the lack of evidence that there isn't one.

Yes, that would be irrational. But since it is not a requisite for an atheist it does not matter. If you want to say that to claim something to be 100% true is irrational you should have made a scepticism thread. Since Neither atheism or theism are good examples for that.

Theism as well as Atheism are believes. Not to claim something as fact. Could we get that straight, please?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
spelt wrong!

Spelled Wrong

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So you claim agnosticism on unicorns. Goblins. Trolls. Santa. The Tooth Fairy. And the Easter Bunny? no expression

You've been implying a mutual exclusivity in saying one cannot be both an agnostic and an atheist or theist. That is not true. You're making generalisations.

FFS! I said it is a SHIT example, because Santa was created for purposly for FICTION, as was Tooth Fairy.

Second, please explain to me now, how can someone claim lack of existance of God based on no evidence, while at the same time proclaiming no knowledge of God and thus no evidence can be collected.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Spelled Wrong Both are actually acceptable.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Spelled Wrong

Oh, that's embarrassing now.


For you, since both are possible. You really shouldn't try to be a grammar Nazi. You lack knowledge of the English language to pull it off.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, that would be irrational. But since it is not a requisite for an atheist it does not matter. If you want to say that to claim something to be 100% true is irrational you should have made a scepticism thread. Since Neither atheism or theism are good examples for that.

Theism as well as Atheism are believes. Not to claim something as fact. Could we get that straight, please?



I got an impression, from all the things I read on this board, and around internet that Atheism is a rational conclusion that there is no god based on the fact that there are no evidence for such a being existing....with no believing involved.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
FFS! I said it is a SHIT example, because Santa was created for purposly for FICTION, as was Tooth Fairy.

Second, please explain to me now, how can someone claim lack of existance of God based on no evidence, while at the same time proclaiming no knowledge of God and thus no evidence can be collected.

Not claim that the non-existance of God is 100% proven. That's not the definition of Atheism. Someone that does that is an atheist, but not everyone that is an atheist claims that. Atheism is the BELIEF that no God exists.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Not claim that the non-existance of God is 100% proven. That's not the definition of Atheism. Someone that does that is an atheist, but not everyone that is an atheist claims that. Atheism is the BELIEF that no God exists.

Refer to above.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I got an impression, from all the things I read on this board, and around internet that Atheism is a rational conclusion that there is no god based on the fact that there are no evidence for such a being existing....with no believing involved.

Someone that believes that "there is no god based on the fact that there are no evidence for such a being existing" is an atheist that is true. And that might be an idiotic view. But it is not the general definition of Atheism.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes

Someone that believes that "there is no god based on the fact that there are no evidence for such a being existing" is an atheist that is true. And that might be an idiotic view. But it is not the general definition of Atheism.

Unfortunately, idiotic version of Atheism is the one most commonly projected.

lord xyz
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Atheism and Agnosticism are not on the oppsite side of the spectrum. I ever said that. But they are different.

One claims no knowldge, and the other claims that something does not exist due to lack of evidence, or that there is nothing which indicates God's existance.

One claims not knowledge, and thus impossibility of obtaining evidence, the other claims no existance due to lack of evidence.
Your comparison of Atheism and Agnosticism sounds like when xmarksthespot compares strong atheism to weak atheism. Really.

lil b language: Atheism = Strong Atheism, Agnosticism = Weak Atheism.

Now, if we use those translations, what she says actually makes some sense.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
FFS! I said it is a SHIT example, because Santa was created for purposly for FICTION, as was Tooth Fairy.

Second, please explain to me now, how can someone claim lack of existance of God based on no evidence, while at the same time proclaiming no knowledge of God and thus no evidence can be collected. Many of the major modern religions are likewise fictitious in basis.

You're working on narrowed definitions of both atheism and agnosticism. And again you're generalising. Not every atheist holds absolutist views.

I do not believe there is a god. I do not claim to know whether this (lack of) belief is true. If presented with proof of the contrary, my stance is mutable. I do not believe it can be proven either way. Whether or not it is true has no impact on how I live my life. Agnosticism and atheism.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Unfortunately, idiotic version of Atheism is the one most commonly projected.

On here? No doubt about it.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Agnosticism and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive stances. erm

Where did I say they were exclusive stances ?


All I said was that Atheists and Theists contain conviction towards one side, while Agnostics usually do not.

However, Atheism is NOT simply the nullification of Theism. It is a belief BASED on Theism.

Can a person with no exposure to the concept of God be an Athiest, simply because he doesn't beleive in something he NEVER heard of ?

In order to be Atheist you must have a beleif in no God, after having been made aware of the concept.

Let me make it simple since you like to make things more complicated then they have to be:


(No) Athiesm----------------GOD--------------------Theism(Yes)
---------------------------Agnosticism------------------------------
-----------------------------(Maybe)--------------------------------



Theism and Atheism are both ends of the SAME SPECTRUM which is the concept of God.

You cannot be an Athiest if you have never been exposed to the concept of God. For example: A NEW BORN BABY cannot be an Athiest (or Theist for that matter) simply because he or she does not believe in God.


Therefore, Athiesm is as much as process of beleif as Theism, and zealotry on the matter can occur on EITHER END. There have been ATHIEST SUMMER CAMPS made for crying out loud !



Atheism is simply less common. So it's zealotry is almost rare. That is all.




And btw, my whole Athiest typo is an honest mistake, especially considering I type a whole lotta crap at a fast pace. Plus I got this whole "I before E bullshit programmed into my puny brain.

lil bitchiness
Bardock, here is the link of explanation, based on a site American Atheists http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/




Should the hint have been ''American''? Maybe.

Bardock42
Just run a spellcheck before you post.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Where did I say they were exclusive stances ?Here:
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
To claim no knowledge is not mutually exclusive to claiming a belief or lack thereof . Nor are the latter incompatible with indifference. One can hold the view "I don't really know, I think that there could be a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way." or "I don't know, I think there isn't a god more than the contrary, I don't really care either way."; and these would be theist and atheist views respectively. Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I disagree. no expression

Edit: And you're still spelling atheist wrong. no expression

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Bardock, here is the link of explanation, based on a site American Atheists http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/




Should the hint have been ''American''? Maybe.

Yes, what is your problem with that? That explains my belief exactly. And now I also believe that I can't be sure. That it could be the other way. As I am a sceptic. How can I help you with the problem?

lil bitchiness

Lord Urizen
X, I disagree with your assertion that a true Thiest would say "I think God exists, but who cares"

Likewise, I disagree with your claim that a true Athiest would say "Maybe God DOES exist, but even if he did, I don't care"


I DO agree, however, with your assertion that Agnosticism is not exclusive and can exist within the mindset of a Thiest or Atheist. Many Atheists and Theists alike do not necessarily claim thier stances as FACT, and recognize thier beliefs are simple beliefs.

However, those people are still more accurately classified as Theists and Atheists because they have chosen one side of the beleif in the concept of God.

Most Agnostics, by definition, do not claim in thier belief whether God does or does not exist. The essence of thier stances is the word "maybe". Most Atheists and Theists will never say "maybe I'm right, maybe thier right" They most often claim they ARE correct, even when they have no proof to support thier beleifs as Truth.




I am not trying to argue that this is a BLACK and WHITE matter, but its Grey Areas are either very dark or very light, if you get what I
m trying to say.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not really. It does not claim possibility, it claims fact, hence my separation from IT and AGnosticism.

VV


''This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.'' That's nice. But people define words. Words do not define people. erm

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's nice. But people define words. Words do not define people. erm

That is true, but the definitions are quite clear. They're not up for intepretation.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
X, I disagree with your assertion that a true Thiest would say "I think God exists, but who cares"

Likewise, I disagree with your claim that a true Athiest would say "Maybe God DOES exist, but even if he did, I don't care"


I DO agree, however, with your assertion that Agnosticism is not exclusive and can exist within the mindset of a Thiest or Atheist. Many Atheists and Theists alike do not necessarily claim thier stances as FACT, and recognize thier beliefs are simple beliefs.

However, those people are still more accurately classified as Theists and Atheists because they have chosen one side of the beleif in the concept of God.

Most Agnostics, by definition, do not claim in thier belief whether God does or does not exist. The essence of thier stances is the word "maybe". Most Atheists and Theists will never say "maybe I'm right, maybe thier right" They most often claim they ARE correct, even when they have no proof to support thier beleifs as Truth.




I am not trying to argue that this is a BLACK and WHITE matter, but its Grey Areas are either very dark or very light, if you get what I
m trying to say.

Actually, I concur.

Looking at the deffinition I have found on a website, should illustrate your point further.

Bardock42

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
X, I disagree with your assertion that a true Thiest would say "I think God exists, but who cares"

Likewise, I disagree with your claim that a true Athiest would say "Maybe God DOES exist, but even if he did, I don't care"


I DO agree, however, with your assertion that Agnosticism is not exclusive and can exist within the mindset of a Thiest or Atheist. Many Atheists and Theists alike do not necessarily claim thier stances as FACT, and recognize thier beliefs are simple beliefs.

However, those people are still more accurately classified as Theists and Atheists because they have chosen one side of the beleif in the concept of God.

Most Agnostics, by definition, do not claim in thier belief whether God does or does not exist. The essence of thier stances is the word "maybe". Most Atheists and Theists will never say "maybe I'm right, maybe thier right" They most often claim they ARE correct, even when they have no proof to support thier beleifs as Truth.

I am not trying to argue that this is a BLACK and WHITE matter, but its Grey Areas are either very dark or very light, if you get what I
m trying to say. I'd imagine other than those who have no concept of god, that you would find it difficult to find people who truly held an exactly balanced agnosticism, and didn't have a slight inclination one way or the other.

Up In Flames
Ah, yes... the atheists know everything, as usual....

ThePittman
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's nice. But people define words. Words do not define people. erm The word "people" defines people. stick out tongue Sorry I just had to do it.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
That's nice. But people define words. Words do not define people. erm

Yeah, thats nice, but that is a whole different Michel Foucault philosophy which is unrelated to what we are talking about.

These are the group of people, who call themselves Atheists, and who have agreed upon what they believe.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Up In Flames
Ah, yes... the atheists know everything, as usual....

We just know how words in the English language are defined. Sorry about that.

ThePittman
Originally posted by Up In Flames
Ah, yes... the atheists know everything, as usual.... No we never said we do, but you seem to have all the answers and if you don't you wish to condemned them for it.

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah, thats nice, but that is a whole different Michel Foucault philosophy which is unrelated to what we are talking about.

These are the group of people, who call themselves Atheists, and who have agreed upon what they believe. And I refer to myself as an atheist and an agnostic, and hold views relevant to both perspectives. Websters, wikipedia and the American atheists do not dictate one's views.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

And you're generalising.

lil bitchiness

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Question: Would you call a person who has never even heard of the concept of God, an Athiest ?
Yes I would. Because they don't believe in God. Simple isn't it?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Where did I say they were exclusive stances ?

All I said was that Atheists and Theists contain conviction towards one side, while Agnostics usually do not. Which makes them exclusive stances.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
However, Atheism is NOT simply the nullification of Theism. It is a belief BASED on Theism. No it ****ing isn't.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Can a person with no exposure to the concept of God be an Athiest, simply because he doesn't beleive in something he NEVER heard of ? Yes, yes and yes. Where do you get this from?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
In order to be Atheist you must have a beleif in no God, after having been made aware of the concept. You're talking like Atheism is a religion, and always has been, for it to be a religion, it needs a prophet. So my question to you is: Who is the prophet of Atheism?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Let me make it simple since you like to make things more complicated then they have to be:


(No) Athiesm----------------GOD--------------------Theism(Yes)
---------------------------Agnosticism------------------------------
-----------------------------(Maybe)--------------------------------

How cute. Agnosticism is neutral, makes sense.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Theism and Atheism are both ends of the SAME SPECTRUM which is the concept of God. You have no idea what Atheism is do you?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You cannot be an Athiest if you have never been exposed to the concept of God. For example: A NEW BORN BABY cannot be an Athiest (or Theist for that matter) simply because he or she does not believe in God. Did you just say it's not an Atheist because it doesn't believe in God?

"A NEW BORN BABY cannot be an Athiest (or Theist for that matter) simply because he or she does not believe in God."

Wow, talk about moronic. no expression
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Therefore, Athiesm is as much as process of beleif as Theism, and zealotry on the matter can occur on EITHER END. There have been ATHIEST SUMMER CAMPS made for crying out loud ! I ****ing doubt that. no expression You can't teach Atheism, there's nothing to teach.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Atheism is simply less common. So it's zealotry is almost rare. That is all. Atheism less common? Nearly everyone in China is Atheist. Nearly everyone in the UK is Atheist. When have we ever had Atheistic suicide bombers and Atheist camps and Atheist churches? Oh that's right, there's none. And that's a fact.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
And btw, my whole Athiest typo is an honest mistake, especially considering I type a whole lotta crap at a fast pace. Plus I got this whole "I before E bullshit programmed into my puny brain. Well done. But please stop, I think it's contageous.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yeah, thats nice, but that is a whole different Michel Foucault philosophy which is unrelated to what we are talking about.

These are the group of people, who call themselves Atheists, and who have agreed upon what they believe.

Yes. Believe. Not know. There is the word you are lookign for right there. Believe. They believe it is that way. They do not know. Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge about God can not exist. Atheism do not claim that they know God does not exist.

q.e.d.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. Believe. Not know. There is the word you are lookign for right there. Believe. They believe it is that way. They do not know. Agnosticism is the belief that knowledge about God can not exist. Atheism do not claim that they know God does not exist.

q.e.d.

Sorry my bad. In their deffinition, there is absolutely NO metnion of word 'believe'. None. Just state, NOT believe.

It is my addition. Apologies.

Up In Flames
Originally posted by ThePittman
No we never said we do, but you seem to have all the answers and if you don't you wish to condemned them for it.



Matter of fact, the God I worship does. Is there anything you'd like me to ask him?

Bardock42

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Sorry my bad. In their deffinition, there is absolutely NO metnion of word 'believe'. None. Just state, NOT believe.

It is my addition. Apologies.

Why apologies? It is a believe. You were right there for one.

Oh man, I can just see it, Ush's going to come and say you got bashed and I'll be banned. I am sad in advance.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
No. Look. It is a beleif. You can belief that the sun is a freaking bowl of cheese. As long as you also beliefe that there can't be any knowledge abotu God you ae an agnostic. By definition. That yaou are an atheist has nothing to do with it.

And Agnostics state that they beleive that they do not know. Never realized that they do? Well, they do.

They do not use word believe, or belief. It is nowhere within the deffinition.

It is a clear cut, this is this, this is that, deffinition. Re-read it again.

And as someone who is trying to familiarise myself further with Atheism, there is only one impression this deffinition gives me.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Bardock42
Why apologies? It is a believe. You were right there for one.

Oh man, I can just see it, Ush's going to come and say you got bashed and I'll be banned. I am sad in advance.

Ok, change the subject. I'll accept you are a non-mainstream version of atheist, and you accept I looked through the internet at mainstream sites...of atheism.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, change the subject. I'll accept you are a non-mainstream version of atheist, and you accept I looked through the internet at mainstream sites...of atheism.

Anyways. If you are saying that Atheists that think they know that God does not exist are just as ridiculous as Theist that think they know that God exists, I agree with you.Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They do not use word believe, or belief. It is nowhere within the deffinition.

It is a clear cut, this is this, this is that, deffinition. Re-read it again.

And as someone who is trying to familiarise myself further with Atheism, there is only one impression this deffinition gives me.

As someone who is already familiar with atheism due to being an atheist for well..all of his life, I can tell you 2 things a) that this is a personal definition of this group and b) that even if we would accept it as absolute it does not contradict Agnosticism, which means even American Atheists can be Agnostics if they chose to believe that there can't be knowledge about God.

Victor Von Doom
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes I would. Because they don't believe in God. Simple isn't it?

Which makes them exclusive stances.
No it ****ing isn't.
Yes, yes and yes. Where do you get this from?
You're talking like Atheism is a religion, and always has been, for it to be a religion, it needs a prophet. So my question to you is: Who is the prophet of Atheism?
How cute. Agnosticism is neutral, makes sense.
You have no idea what Atheism is do you?
Did you just say it's not an Atheist because it doesn't believe in God?

"A NEW BORN BABY cannot be an Athiest (or Theist for that matter) simply because he or she does not believe in God."

Wow, talk about moronic. no expression
I ****ing doubt that. no expression You can't teach Atheism, there's nothing to teach.
Atheism less common? Nearly everyone in China is Atheist. Nearly everyone in the UK is Atheist. When have we ever had Atheistic suicide bombers and Atheist camps and Atheist churches? Oh that's right, there's none. And that's a fact.
Well done. But please stop, I think it's contageous.

It is precisely the opposite of theism, etymologically. The term is defined by theism. To assert otherwise is stupid.

lil B: Do you read the definitions you post? I only wonder because you misspelled definition before and after the quote, which had the correct spelling in it.

ThePittman
Originally posted by Up In Flames
Matter of fact, the God I worship does. Is there anything you'd like me to ask him? I really don't want you talking with your self.

xmarksthespot
1. Atheism at its most basic is a belief that there is no god.
2. Theism at its most basic is a belief that there is a god.
3. Agnosticism at its most basic is a claim that one has no absolute knowledge of the existence of a god or gods, and/or it is not possible to have absolute knowledge.

Neither 1 and 3 nor 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive, no matter how one interprets what the American atheists define as atheism.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It is precisely the opposite of theism, etymologically. The term is defined by theism. To assert otherwise is stupid.

lil B: Do you read the definitions you post? I only wonder because you misspelled definition before and after the quote, which had the correct spelling in it.

Yes. It is all clearer now. This whole thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Anyways. If you are saying that Atheists that think they know that God does not exist are just as ridiculous as Theist that think they know that God exists, I agree with you.

That was the point.

Bardock42
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That was the point.

Good. Well, the wording is still offensive to theists and atheists (also those that do not fit the radical category).

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That was the point. Generalisations are frowned upon.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1. Atheism at its most basic is a belief that there is no god.
2. Theism at its most basic is a belief that there is a god.
3. Agnosticism at its most basic is a claim that one has no absolute knowledge of the existence of a god or gods, and/or it is not possible to have absolute knowledge.

Neither 1 and 3 nor 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive, no matter how one interprets what the American atheists define as atheism.


Yes, I agree with you 100% X...

But I do not separate Atheism and Theism as two entirely different things. They are both beliefs based on the concept of God. My other point was that zealotry can spawn as easily in both mindsets, and that in pure Agnosticism zealotry is very very unlikely to form.

It seemed to me before that you were trying to argue that Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God, not a belief system like Theism is. I disagreed with that point, because , just like you stated yourself right now, Theism at its most basic is the belief that there is a God.

My point is Theism and Atheism are two ends of the same spectrum. I take it you would agree with that.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Yes, I agree with you 100% X...

But I do not separate Atheism and Theism as two entirely different things. They are both beliefs based on the concept of God. My other point was that zealotry can spawn as easily in both mindsets, and that in pure Agnosticism zealotry is very very unlikely to form.

It seemed to me before that you were trying to argue that Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God, not a belief system like Theism is. I disagreed with that point, because , just like you stated yourself right now, Theism at its most basic is the belief that there is a God.

My point is Theism and Atheism are two ends of the same spectrum. I take it you would agree with that.

Atheism is just as much a belief system as Agnosticism. I agree.

xmarksthespot
It is in itself a belief. So is "Angelina Jolie is hot." I wouldn't call it in itself a belief system. It would only constitute a belief system if it formed the foundation for derivative beliefs, ethical philosophies etc.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Bardock42
Atheism is just as much a belief system as Agnosticism. I agree.

It very well is. It's just not a religion.


I think people use Belief system and religion as automatic synonyms and that's incorrect to do so.


Agnosticism alone, however, doesn't take a solid or bias stance. That's the difference between it and Atheism/Theism

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It is in itself a belief. So is "Angelina Jolie is hot." I wouldn't call it in itself a belief system. It would only constitute a belief system if it formed the foundation for derivative beliefs, ethical philosophies etc.

A reasonable comparison X, but just keep in mind that In order for Atheism, Theism, or Agnosticism to exist, the concept of God must be there first.

Not all people can fall under these 3 categories. Some people, beleive it or not, were never exposed to the concept of God in the first place.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It very well is. It's just not a religion.


I think people use Belief system and religion as automatic synonyms and that's incorrect to do so.


Agnosticism alone, however, doesn't take a solid or bias stance. That's the difference between it and Atheism/Theism

Neither is Atheism.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Bardock42
Neither is Atheism.

I know Atheism is not a religion. That's what I said in my first sentence.


It is however, still a beleif based on the concept of God. The only difference is that is rejects God while Theism accepts God.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I know Atheism is not a religion. That's what I said in my first sentence.


It is however, still a beleif based on the concept of God. The only difference is that is rejects God while Theism accepts God.

Yes. And?

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'd imagine other than those who have no concept of god, that you would find it difficult to find people who truly held an exactly balanced agnosticism, and didn't have a slight inclination one way or the other.

Probably. I consider myself Agnostic even though I don't beleive in the mainstream Christian God. Doesn't make me Athiest though.

Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity....Atheism is the opposite of Religion and all Theism, simply meaning a belief in ANY God or cosmic creator is rejected.


I still am open to the possibility that a "God" may exist. I do beleive there may be some kind of unifying or creational force that somehow formed this Universe...not based on any concrete proof, but based on the evidense of the workings of chaos and order in our cosmos that science has discovered, based on the numerous complex systems our reality consists of, and just based on rationalization from research and experience.


A lot of Agnostics hold the same opinion.....just because we aren't strictly in the middle, doesn't mean we're not agnostic.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes. And?


And nothing....you seem to agree with my points, so I agree back.

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Generalisations are frowned upon.

Oooh really? Isn't that interesting.

Except of course if you are a relgious person being lumped together, than its ok?
Or perhaps a religious people in general?!
Then generalisation is ok. Look around this forum, look at the posts.

You frown upon when what you hold dear is being generalised, otherwise...

I am not picking on you, or being personal. Far from it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good. Well, the wording is still offensive to theists and atheists (also those that do not fit the radical category).
I know it is.

Im sure this, however was not offencive to Christians who are not in ''radical category''.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t320033.html

lil bitchiness
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Probably. I consider myself Agnostic even though I don't beleive in the mainstream Christian God. Doesn't make me Athiest though.

Atheism is not the opposite of Christianity....Atheism is the opposite of Religion and all Theism, simply meaning a belief in ANY God or cosmic creator is rejected.


I still am open to the possibility that a "God" may exist. I do beleive there may be some kind of unifying or creational force that somehow formed this Universe...not based on any concrete proof, but based on the evidense of the workings of chaos and order in our cosmos that science has discovered, based on the numerous complex systems our reality consists of, and just based on rationalization from research and experience.


A lot of Agnostics hold the same opinion.....just because we aren't strictly in the middle, doesn't mean we're not agnostic.

I am undecided about God. It might exist but not as a sadistic deity who watches our every move...I doubt that.

However, I read something in New Scientist recently which begins to shake my view on things.

There is a emerging belief that our universe is only one of the many. That others may have allowed another life. Apperantly there are far more universes created at different times, before, and after ours...hmmm, something to ponder about.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
A reasonable comparison X, but just keep in mind that In order for Atheism, Theism, or Agnosticism to exist, the concept of God must be there first.

Not all people can fall under these 3 categories. Some people, beleive it or not, were never exposed to the concept of God in the first place. And I would call them Atheist. For they are just like atheists, they don't have a religion.

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>