NationStates Jolt Archive

Atheism is a religious belief (Though not a religion). It is entirely impossible to prove that there exists no God, gods or some other spiritual entity. Atheists who believe that they are somehow enlightened and have special knowledge that those who have religious beliefs (of other kinds) cannot see, are kidding themselves. Atheism is no more or less plausible than Belief in the existence of some kind of spiritual entity.

BTW I am personally an atheist

Those who claim to have special knowledge would probably be classified as gnostic atheists (an interesting combination).

Has anyone heard of the insomniac dyslexic agnostic? He stayed up all night wondering if there really was a dog.

http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/atheism.html

It would appear to me that you hail from a community of strict etymological reformists. ;) Bully for you. :D But I myself must confess that I have never before coming here encountered anyone who used the technically correct definitions for the words.

Let me axe you this: do you critique and deconstruct the belief that G-d exists? And do you critique and deconstruct the view that G-d does not exist? For only if both are you truly an Atheist in the technical sense of the word. Perhaps you would say yes to the second and not so much of the time to the first, but that this is due to a greater amount of evidence to the latter. Well, this makes you an Antitheist in the tech sense, or at least one who leans to that side. There is in fact no real evidence of either position. And let me axe you this as well: In your crowd, what do y'all call a person who believes that G-d does not exist? And what is your definition of "agnostic"?

Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek - but you were actually not far from the truth... my school education was Grammar School, and my post-school friends were my University compatriots, so there has been a fairly consistent 'hot-house' environment... which has certainly had a leaning in the general direction of academia and a certain acadmeic 'purity'.

How did I arrive at my 'Atheist' stance? Through the two processes you listed - since I started out as a very disenchanted christian, who had conflicts between the world he was taught and the world he experienced... my dissection of my belief in (and against) god lead me to the position I roughly occupy today... which can be similarly said for several of my 'inner circle'.

Of course, the way I read 'atheist' - all that is required to be an atheist is to 'not believe' that there are any gods... my standard for qualifying as atheist is perhaps less rigourous than yours.

I would say that my experience leads me closer to Antitheism than to (what I consider) pure Atheism.

In my crowd, we would call a person that believed G_d doesn't exist... well, it varies... we might call them a Hindu (since they don't believe in G_d, do they?), or a Sikh or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc. If you mean they don't believe in ANY gods - we'd probably call them atheists - since both disbelief and lack-of-belief make one an atheist - just different 'degrees'. (What they call 'hard' and 'soft' atheists, I guess).

My definition of agnostic... I have already stated... it is someone who doesn't believe that it is possible to know whether or not god exists. They must (therefore) have a knowledge of what god IS supposed to be (which is why I argue 'atheism' as the 'default'). My cadre of cohorts would use much the same definition, one imagines.

Perhaps you were being tongue-in-cheek - but you were actually not far from the truth... my school education was Grammar School, and my post-school friends were my University compatriots, so there has been a fairly consistent 'hot-house' environment... which has certainly had a leaning in the general direction of academia and a certain acadmeic 'purity'.

How did I arrive at my 'Atheist' stance? Through the two processes you listed - since I started out as a very disenchanted christian, who had conflicts between the world he was taught and the world he experienced... my dissection of my belief in (and against) god lead me to the position I roughly occupy today... which can be similarly said for several of my 'inner circle'.

Of course, the way I read 'atheist' - all that is required to be an atheist is to 'not believe' that there are any gods... my standard for qualifying as atheist is perhaps less rigourous than yours.

I would say that my experience leads me closer to Antitheism than to (what I consider) pure Atheism.

In my crowd, we would call a person that believed G_d doesn't exist... well, it varies... we might call them a Hindu (since they don't believe in G_d, do they?), or a Sikh or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, etc. If you mean they don't believe in ANY gods - we'd probably call them atheists - since both disbelief and lack-of-belief make one an atheist - just different 'degrees'. (What they call 'hard' and 'soft' atheists, I guess).

My definition of agnostic... I have already stated... it is someone who doesn't believe that it is possible to know whether or not god exists. They must (therefore) have a knowledge of what god IS supposed to be (which is why I argue 'atheism' as the 'default'). My cadre of cohorts would use much the same definition, one imagines.
Personally I would consider you in the agnostic circle but I agree I am in much the same position as you … and for most of the same reasons.

It sometimes reminds me of shorties watching shorties “I went to catholic school for 12 years. When my friends ask me ‘why arnt you catholic’ because um I went to catholic school for 12 years”
That describes SOME of the process … what was being force fed to me was not what I experienced in real life … and exposed to the lies, the lack of reasoning, the lack of understanding (of even their own faith and holy book) and the hypocrisy has led me to a position of “I do not know / understand” rather then a steadfast belief of a lack of a deity (as for your friends grave I would put them into dietists … belief in a higher power just not sure what)

I acknowledge the possibility that there is no god … and lean towards believing there is none (but absence of proof is not proof of absence)

I guess it is an I don’t know :)

Personally I would consider you in the agnostic circle but I agree I am in much the same position as you … and for most of the same reasons.

It sometimes reminds me of shorties watching shorties “I went to catholic school for 12 years. When my friends ask me ‘why arnt you catholic’ because um I went to catholic school for 12 years”
That describes SOME of the process … what was being force fed to me was not what I experienced in real life … and exposed to the lies, the lack of reasoning, the lack of understanding (of even their own faith and holy book) and the hypocrisy has led me to a position of “I do not know / understand” rather then a steadfast belief of a lack of a deity (as for your friends grave I would put them into dietists … belief in a higher power just not sure what)

I acknowledge the possibility that there is no god … and lean towards believing there is none (but absence of proof is not proof of absence)

I guess it is an I don’t know :)

Approaching the same fence... but from the other side... I have no belief that there is a god, of any kind - but, I'm not ruling out the possibility that there COULD BE.... I just don't believe there is...

Anti-theist atheist with agnostic sympathies....?

I'm atheist and I don't consider myself to be an angry person lol

I'm in the same boat, I went to a catholic primary school (4 - 11), catholic secondary school (11 - 16) and a catholic college (16 - 18), thankfully now at University there is no offical religon - victory! ^_^

Yea, I was never religous, it always seemed a farse to me... its not often you'll find a a 7 year old kid telling a priest hes talking nonsense... but then again... wheres th fun in being part of the flock? lol

But Catholicism accelorated my shift from agnosticism to atheism (by afew years) :)

Well, actually Christians have no problem with science. In fact, most of the founding fathers of science were Christians or deists of some sort. Christians have a problem with fairy tales being promoted as science and being shoved down our throats every day on TV and in our schools, and then if we object to that which should be objected to, we are categorized as snaggletoothed, ignorant inbreds.

Fairy tales? What fairy tales? Name a fairy tale. If you say evolution, I will probably die laughing. Because the Christian alternative to evolution is not even close to being scientific. What makes genesis any different from creation myths in other religions? Because it's in the bible? Sorry, these creation myths are in other religion's holy books too. That's not special. What seperates evolution from genesis and the other myths is that it is disprovable. If there is enough evidence disproving it, then the theory goes poof. I'd like to see you do that with the bible, as you can't disprove it if you accept it as true. If you don't accept it as true, you wouldn't have a problem dismissing that drivel, and accepting evolution, as there is a lot more evidence for that, then there is from a book where everyone got all uppity about a dead guy nailed to a tree 2000 years ago.

Damn you Dalai Lama :mad:

Seriously, that is a massive over generalization.

Some religious people are assholes, as are some atheists.

This thread should have ended after this post.

It didn't... deal with it :)

im angry..but im pretty sure that doesnt stem from my religious beliefs...