We're All Atheists

Originally posted by Firefly218
Once again, I am referring to agnostics. Those who dont believe in God in any conventional sense, but still entertain the possibility of a higher, unknown power.

Same way Christians believe in Christianity rather than Hinduism
Atheists/Agnostics believe in science rather than Christianity

The only difference is that atheists have some evidence

Atheists and Agnostics aren't the same thing. Agnostics have a much more tenable position from a philosophical standpoint.

Originally posted by Bentley
Atheists and Agnostics aren't the same thing. Agnostics have a much more tenable position from a philosophical standpoint.

Atheists are radical agnostics

Originally posted by Bentley
Atheists and Agnostics aren't the same thing. Agnostics have a much more tenable position from a philosophical standpoint.

In this I agree. Each position renders an absolute judgment on subjective limited premises. The theists say "God absolutely exist" and atheists say "God absolutely does not exist". But the similarities end there really. Theists use faith to patch the logical holes their position maintains and atheists tend to regard absence of proof as proof of absence.

I've assumed what Wikipedia apparently calls "hard agnosticism"; that is,

The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Also, Firefly; you're misusing terms again and creating semantic issues. Google bro.

Considering the claims regarding the existence of a god, there are two possible claims:

God exists
God does not exist
For either claim, there are two positions one can take with regard to belief:

belief or acceptance of the claim
disbelief or rejection of the claim
For claim number 1 (God exists), the theist's position is one of belief, while the atheist's position is one of disbelief.

For claim number 2 (God does not exist), the theist's position is one of disbelief, while atheists can hold either position.

Some atheists actively believe that no god exists while others hold that neither claim is sufficiently supported to justify acceptance. These positions are often labeled strong atheism and weak atheism, respectively. Additionally, some individuals confuse the weak atheism position with agnosticism. There isn't much difference between weak atheists and agnostics. Agnostics are more likely to feel positive about the possibility that God or a higher power might exist. Weak atheists are more likely to believe that God is improbable and weak atheists focus on living life as if there certainly were no God. Weak atheists are likely to argue that if god/gods exist we can't know what they want from us so we might as well live our lives taking only this world into account.

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Atheist_vs_Agnostic

The terms are interchangeable, but my point remains.

Athiests/Agnostics don't believe in the Christian God for the same reasons Christians don't believe in Hindu Gods.

Are you sure about that? Most Christians believe in Christ instead of Vishnu or Odin or Juju of the Mountain because of their families and where they were born; not because they've made a logical approach to a situation and found one side wanting over the other.

Also, most atheists are former Christians, meaning that when they did make a decision to evaluate, evidence led them to the conclusion that no gods can be proven to exist versus God A over God B. This is because the evidence to support each deity in history is about the same (Faith-based, hearsay, remote sources of unconfirmed authenticity).

You can equate them in terms of making absolute judgments, but in approach and methodology, they are vastly different.

I like posting this video whenever the discussion is relevant:

YouTube video

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I like posting this video whenever the discussion is relevant:

YouTube video

Awesome video. I think I actually learned from that. thnx man 👆

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Are you sure about that? Most Christians believe in Christ instead of Vishnu or Odin or Juju of the Mountain because of their families and where they were born; not because they've made a logical approach to a situation and found one side wanting over the other.

😆 that's from Richard Dawkins isn't it?

My point is, when Christians hear the beliefs of other religions they balk in ridicule at the sheer strangeness. I, as an atheist, do the same towards Christianity.

Originally posted by Firefly218
My point is, when Christians hear the beliefs of other religions they balk in ridicule at the sheer strangeness. I, as an atheist, do the same towards Christianity.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Awesome video. I think I actually learned from that. thnx man 👆

If what you're attempting is to narrow the divide, as you say, it's a noble enough end. I don't mean to sound overly harsh. I just don't think this is a productive line of inquiry. Even if, as I mentioned earlier, you use agnosticism instead of atheism for this point, you're still ignoring all the stuff that creates the schisms in the first place. A discussion of semantics isn't going to bring anyone together; if anything, it just serves to highlight differences in belief.

I do see this point used by atheists a lot. You're not in terrible company. I just don't see it as the best way to approach it.

I believe in a God that compromises everyone's interests but my own, i.e. I believe in myself.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Be careful about generalizing.

👆 My intention was not to stereotype Christians in a negative light.

Atheism, the modern opium of the people.

Originally posted by Astner
Atheism, the modern opium of the people.

You're still talking about, at best, 5-6% of the population, and usually quite a bit less. This is hardly fair as a statistical assessment.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Atheists are radical agnostics

Only if you admit that radicalization will always deform and corrupt the initial premise of the argument. As Astner just implied, there is some idiocy in the generalized admission of atheism as a de facto state of mind for most population.

I do think atheism is "a thing" but I much rather use the word for arguments than for people. Bottomline: there are many different types of atheists -without even trying to stick theists into them!-, and then there are agnostics.

Originally posted by Digi
You're still talking about, at best, 5-6% of the population, and usually quite a bit less. This is hardly fair as a statistical assessment.

I fail to see how your reply discredits my assertion.

Originally posted by Astner
So five to six percent are more likely to exhaust their time and efforts on expressing their philosophical beliefs rather than on topic of actual significance such as the state of the economy, healthcare, and education.

I fail to see how your reply discredits my assertion.

The first paragraph is based on nothing concrete; absolutely nothing. What evidence do you have to support the hypothesis that atheists spend less time discussing the economy, healthcare, and education? As it's provable that atheists are, on average, more educated than most other religious demographics (Jewish notwithstanding, who have similarly high marks), I'd say there's a fair chance atheists consider these things more than their religious counterparts. I'm guessing, of course, but at least it's based on more than nothing. /shrug

Also, "opium of the people" implies a lot bigger mass of people (btw, I was being generous with 5-6%...it's more like 2-3% worldwide). Maybe you have a point, but your choice of phrase was either deliberately or unintentionally misleading. But if 1 in 50 people is enough of a critical mass to be an opiate, so be it. But at that point, we have very different ideas of the term. It's also, if I may say so, more than a touch condescending, as though it's just a "drug" of choice and not a valid position like any other.

Originally posted by Astner
I believe in a God that compromises everyone's interests but my own, i.e. I believe in myself.

Points for confidence; nothing wrong with that. But what happens when you're dead? I shudder to think of a universe without your benevolent godhood to protect it.

313

Again, maybe you're just an atheist/agnostic with a strong sense of self-worth. Nothing wrong with that. But if that's the case (and it likely isn't) your delivery, well, leaves a lot of ambiguity.

Digi just made me wonder how much of the world population actually takes opium mmm

Originally posted by Firefly218
ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\

: a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not

True Christians are not agnostics. You contradict yourself

I am positive you are a troll, now.

Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Unless you believe that Christians have an Objective Knowledge of God's existence, they are all agnostics because, at the end of the day, "They don't really ****in' know."

🙂

Originally posted by Firefly218
Atheists are radical agnostics

You have that wrong. Agnosticism is a newer philosophical position than atheism.

Agnostics are "third kind".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Christians have an Objective Knowledge of God's existence,

Uber christians are uber uhuh