Originally posted by Up In FlamesWell let see, I don’t steal, kill, commit adultery, and lie so that only leaves believing in god. It is mentalities like this that scares me and create zealots and suicide bombers. People that believe in the bible still commit these and more sins, so what is you point.
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.
Originally posted by Up In FlamesThe only thing holding you back from committing misdemeanors or felonies is an old book...? Frankly this reflects more on you than anyone else.
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.
Originally posted by ThePittman
Well let see, I don’t steal, kill, commit adultery, and lie so that only leaves believing in god. It is mentalities like this that scares me and create zealots and suicide bombers. People that believe in the bible still commit these and more sins, so what is you point.
By saying you are sin-free is a straight up lie. As for zealots and suicide bombers, you are referring to a totally separate religion. The only extremist Christians you'll ever see are the evangelists trying to knock some sense into you nay-sayers.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessUnicorns. Goblins. Trolls. Santa. The Tooth Fairy. And the Easter Bunny. Not believing in those is as irrational as believing in them?
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.
If you agree that they're not mutually exclusive then why have you been arguing that they are?
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?
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.
Originally posted by lil bitchinessSo you claim agnosticism on unicorns. Goblins. Trolls. Santa. The Tooth Fairy. And the Easter Bunny? 😐
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
So you claim agnosticism on unicorns. Goblins. Trolls. Santa. The Tooth Fairy. And the Easter Bunny? 😐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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Bardock42
YesSomeone 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.