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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness*sigh*
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.
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 bitchinessHere you are saying I am right because my logic proves something you said earlier.
By that ''logic'' (which is permanently inconstant) so do Atheists, because they ''believe'' that there is no Deity.
This is a contradiction, if you fail to see that, I feel sorry for you.
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?
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.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessNo 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.
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?
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.
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.
[edit] Just in case anyone is wondering. I am an agnostic myself.
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''
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.