NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently reading the thread "Atheist Hypocracy" and decided to make this thread.

As humans we cannot live without a cause unless we are in a perminent state of a coma or loss of cerebral functions. You don't need to be religious in order to believe in something. Take AtheISM for example, although not truly a religion, AtheISM is still the BELIEF that there is no God. Or secular humanISM, or CommunISM, and the list just goes on. If someone can actually prove that it is possible to not believe in anyTHING than go ahead.

Unescapable?

Agnosticism is close.

I was recently reading the thread "Atheist Hypocracy" and decided to make this thread.

As humans we cannot live without a cause unless we are in a perminent state of a coma or loss of cerebral functions. You don't need to be religious in order to believe in something. Take AtheISM for example, although not truly a religion, AtheISM is still the BELIEF that there is no God. Or secular humanISM, or CommunISM, and the list just goes on. If someone can actually prove that it is possible to not believe in anyTHING than go ahead.

Why should I believe in anything?

Ah what about evangalism?

No, it isn't. It is the lack of a belief that there is a god. And yes, that is different than what you just said.


Lack just simply means to not have or the absence of. Therefore your absence of the belief that there is a God, is just another way of refrasing that you do not believe in God.


To illustrate, answer the following question:

Do you believe flubberdygubbits exist?

I will provide you with no further information before you answer, and you ARE perfectly capable of answering that question right now, in a completely rational manner.

A flubberdygubbit might exist somewhere other than earth, so I cannot answer that question without having doubts about that answer. And yes, I did answer that in a rational manner.

Ah what about evangalism?

Your still believing that you should spread your belief to others.

Well, you obviously have no damned clue what atheism is, since you posted the definition of antitheism. Atheism is the lack of a god belief. See? No belief involved.

Why should I believe in anything?

I'm not saying that you should believe in anything, I am just saying that the belief in something, whether its a specific political system, or economic system, or religion, or anything that is respectable is such manner is undenyable.

In that case I choose sexism. I would like to, and do believe in sex.

I was recently reading the thread "Atheist Hypocracy" and decided to make this thread.

As humans we cannot live without a cause unless we are in a perminent state of a coma or loss of cerebral functions. You don't need to be religious in order to believe in something. Take AtheISM for example, although not truly a religion, AtheISM is still the BELIEF that there is no God. Or secular humanISM, or CommunISM, and the list just goes on. If someone can actually prove that it is possible to not believe in anyTHING than go ahead.

Belief is one of the things that seperates us from the animals, one of the basic things that makes humanity unique. Your point?

Well, you obviously have no damned clue what atheism is, since you posted the definition of antitheism. Atheism is the lack of a god belief. See? No belief involved.

If you look on the thread, Atheist Hypocracy than you will find that others too have said that it is the opposite of theism. God belief? hmm... rearanging the words of your sentance so that it looks like something different? Meh, the same principle is there anyways.

Lack just simply means to not have or the absence of.

Yes. It does. Very good.

Therefore your absence of the belief that there is a God, is just another way of refrasing that you do not believe in God.

Edit: crap, wasn't paying attention. That, also, is correct... however that is not what you said in your first post.

A flubberdygubbit might exist somewhere other than earth, so I cannot answer that question without having doubts about that answer. And yes, I did answer that in a rational manner.

How can you not answer without doubts? You don't know the state of your own thoughts? I'm asking if you do believe something or do not believe something. It's a simple question.

Now, restricting your answer to either yes or no, please answer the question. You require no further information to do so.

Do you believe in flubberdygubbits?

Belief is one of the things that seperates us from the animals, one of the basic things that makes humanity unique. Your point?

My point is that no one can escape it no matter how hard they try.

If you look on the thread, Atheist Hypocracy than you will find that others too have said that it is the opposite of theism. God belief? hmm... rearanging the words of your sentance so that it looks like something different? Meh, the same principle is there anyways.
They're wrong. And the meaning is completely different. One's a belief, and one's not. How hard is it to wrap your mind around such a simple concept?

Yes. It does. Very good.



Edit: crap, wasn't paying attention. That, also, is correct... however that is not what you said in your first post.



How can you not answer without doubts? You don't know the state of your own thoughts? I'm asking if you do believe something or do not believe something. It's a simple question.

Now, restricting your answer to either yes or no, please answer the question. You require no further information to do so.

Do you believe in flubberdygubbits?

Alright, Restricting my answer to yes or no, I will say yes as I cannot say that there is not some undiscovered species that some little kid will call a flubberdygubbit and that will become its common name.

They're wrong. And the meaning is completely different. One's a belief, and one's not. How hard is it to wrap your mind around such a simple concept?

Oh they're both beliefs. One is the belief that there is no God, and the other is a stated by Reformentia
No, it isn't. It is the lack of a belief that there is a god. And yes, that is different than what you just said.
As you can see i have already disproven this with "Lack just simply means to not have or the absence of. Therefore your absence of the belief that there is a God, is just another way of refrasing that you do not believe in God."

Alright, Restricting my answer to yes or no, I will say yes as I cannot say that there is not some undiscovered species that some little kid will call a flubberdygubbit and that will become its common name.

Really... so you're saying that you do believe flubberdygubbits exist?

Without even knowing what the hell it is you believe it DOES exist?

Keep in mind that the question was not "Do you believe it is theoretically possible something called a flubberdygubbit MIGHT exist?"...

Please confirm your answer is still yes with these facts in mind. If it is, care to explain where this belief came from?

They're wrong. And the meaning is completely different. One's a belief, and one's not. How hard is it to wrap your mind around such a simple concept?

Fine then.

You get to choose whether it is blatent, mindless denial or it is a equal and opposite belief.

Oh they're both beliefs. One is the belief that there is no God, and the other is a stated by Reformentia

As you can see i have already disproven this with "Lack just simply means to not have or the absence of. Therefore your absence of the belief that there is a God, is just another way of refrasing that you do not believe in God."

Do not believe, as in having no belief.

Really... so you're saying that you do believe flubberdygubbits exist?

Without even knowing what the hell it is you believe it DOES exist?

Keep in mind that the question was not "Do you believe it is theoretically possible something called a flubberdygubbit MIGHT exist?"...

Please confirm your answer is still yes with these facts in mind. If it is, care to explain where this belief came from?

I believe that you are trying to force me to answer no. I don't know what God is, but I believe he/she exists. My answer is yes.

You forgot sexism, racism, and what about homo-erotica-phobia ... ism?

You forgot sexism, racism, and what about homo-erotica-phobia ... ism?
I said "and the list just goes on."

I believe that you are trying to force me to answer no. I don't know what God is, but I believe he exists. My answer is yes.

I'm not trying to force you to do anything but consider the meaning of the words you're using.

And I'm not talking about God.

So... your answer is yes is it? You believe flubberdygubbits exist... how interesting.

Now, could you explain to me HOW you believe flubberdygubbits exist when you don't have the faintest clue what that term even means? How exactly did you come to believe in flubberdygubbits within the past 10 minutes? I'd be really fascinated to hear that explained.

I'm not trying to force you to do anything but consider the meaning of the words you're using.

And I'm not talking about God.

So... your answer is yes is it? You believe flubberdygubbits exist... how interesting.

Now, could you explain to me HOW you believe flubberdygubbits exist when you don't have the faintest clue what that term even means? How exactly did you come to believe in flubberdygubbits within the past 10 minutes? I'd be really fascinated to hear that explained.

Edit: Shiot! forgot to finish my argument!
I don't know what a flubberdygubbit is, as I have searched on google and on webster, to find nothing, I will say that I do not currently believe in flubberdygubbits. As this original question was linked to your original argument that Atheism is the absence of a belief in God, not the belief that there is no God, And as I already proved they had the same meaning, this question is no longer relevant and I do not see what you will gain by this question.

Do not believe, as in having no belief.
Having no belief as in not believing IN GOD.

Having no belief as in not believing IN GOD.

can you believe on god?

Edit: Shiot! forgot to finish my argument!
I don't know what a flubberdygubbit is, as I have searched on google and on webster, to find nothing, I will say that I do not currently believe in flubberdygubbits. As this original question was linked to your original argument that Atheism is the absence of a belief in God, not the belief that there is no God, And as I already proved they had the same meaning,

Oh, but you did no such thing... and we're just getting started. The relevance will become apparent fairly shortly.

Alright, so we've established that you do not in fact believe in flubbertygubbits... seeing as you have no idea what they are. A perfectly logical position.

Now, second question.

Do you believe that there are no flubberdygubbits?

Again, you have all the information you require to provide a perfectly rational answer to this question. Yes or no answers only. Please explain your answer whatever it may be.

Having no belief as in not believing IN GOD.
Incidentally, I don't believe in anything. I disprove your idea.

Having lack of belief in god denotes either atheism or agnosticism. However, believing there is no god only denotes atheism. Essentially atheists have belief there is no god while agnostics don't know one way or the other and don't pretend they know, like athiests have to.

Having lack of belief in god denotes either atheism or agnosticism.

No, it only denotes atheism. That's what the the definition of atheism is. If you lack belief in God, you are an atheist. No two ways about it.

Look, there have been two questions considered so far in this thread:

1. Do you believe in God?

2. Do you believe there is NO God?

Now if we're going to bring agnosticism into it we need to consider a third question.

3. Do you believe it's possible to know if there is a God?

Now, let's consider what the different answers to each of those questions makes a person.

A -- 1: Y 2: N 3: Y = You're a theist. You believe in God and you believe it's possible to KNOW if there is a God or if there is no God.
B -- 1: Y 2: N 3: N = You're STILL a theist... AND an agnostic. You believe in God and you don't think it's possible to KNOW if there is a God or if there is no God.
C -- 1: N 2: Y 3: Y = You're an atheist. You don't believe in God, and you believe there is no God.
D -- 1: N 2: N 3: Y = You're STILL an atheist. You don't believe in God, and you have no belief that God doesn't exist either.
E -- 1: N 2: Y 3: N = You're STILL an atheist AND an you're an agnostic. You don't believe in God, You believe there is no God. But you don't think it's possible to KNOW if there is a God or if there is no God.
F -- 1: N 2: N 3: N = You're STILL an atheist AND you're an agnostic. You don't believe in God. You have no belief that there is no God. And you don't think it's possible to KNOW if there is a God or if there is no God.

Agnosticism has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in God. Agnosticism is a statement about belief in whether God can be known.

Again... agnosticism does NOT equal "I DON'T know".
Agnosticism equals "You CAN'T know".

Only relatively recently have people started using "agnostic" as some kind of shorthand for "I don't want to pick a side in the whole atheism theism debate so I'm just going to say I'm sitting on the fence... please don't bother me".

And damn it's irritating.

There is no third alternative to believing or not believing! You either do or you don't. If you do the name for that is theism. If you don't the name for that is atheism. Agnosticism is an additional descriptive term applied to EITHER of these two groups.

Oh, but you did no such thing... and we're just getting started. The relevance will become apparent fairly shortly.

Alright, so we've established that you do not in fact believe in flubbertygubbits... seeing as you have no idea what they are. A perfectly logical position.

Now, second question.

Do you believe that there are no flubberdygubbits?

Again, you have all the information you require to provide a perfectly rational answer to this question. Yes or no answers only. Please explain your answer whatever it may be.

One and only bump for Kreen... I think you know what the answer to this question has to be as well.

One and only bump for Kreen... I think you know what the answer to this question has to be as well.

Indeed. Yes, I know what the answer would be. It would be no.

And on another note, this topic was orriginally in the statement that you cannot get away from worshiping or holding something in high, Libertarianism=free market, the only job the government should have is national def. , and incredible civil rights. Capitalism=The almighty dollar, yen, euro, pound, what ever. And Communism=the community is held high, and everything is done in its name.Etc.

A question for some of you, "If you don't believe in God, or you lack the belief thereof, aren't you still oppinionated in your "lack" of belief, or belief that there is no God?"

The only way you can hide frome isms or beliefs is if you are an a-political, militarily apathetic, and just non oppinionated, agnostic. As in you are completely apathetic to the world and its happenings or issues.

Incidentally, I don't believe in anything. I disprove your idea.

So, you're completely apathetic to all the happenings and issues in the world?

There are two types of Atheism:

"Hard Atheism" - also called "Antitheism", "Explicit Atheism" or "Strong Atheism" by some, is the belief that there definitely is no 'god'. This IS a belief - since it requires a 'gnostic' approach - i.e. that it is possible to know FOR SURE that god DOES NOT exist.

Most Atheists are NOT "Hard Atheists".


"Soft Atheism" - also called "Implicit Atheism" or "Weak Atheism" - is very close to Agnosticism. The "Soft Atheist" does not accept any of the stories of gods as factual, does not 'believe' in any 'gods'. This is an ABSENCE of belief - since the "Soft Atheist has no 'conviction' that there are no 'gods'... he/she simply does not necessarily believe there are.

"Soft Atheism" is parallel to the 'belief' structure most people would have to, for example, 'Goblins'.

I have posted a link that describes a fundamental breakdown of Atheism (and a little bit about Agnosticism): http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Atheism

There are two types of Atheism:

"Hard Atheism" - also called "Antitheism", "Explicit Atheism" or "Strong Atheism" by some, is the belief that there definitely is no 'god'. This IS a belief - since it requires a 'gnostic' approach - i.e. that it is possible to know FOR SURE that god DOES NOT exist.

Most Atheists are NOT "Hard Atheists".


"Soft Atheism" - also called "Implicit Atheism" or "Weak Atheism" - is very close to Agnosticism. The "Soft Atheist" does not accept any of the stories of gods as factual, does not 'believe' in any 'gods'. This is an ABSENCE of belief - since the "Soft Atheist has no 'conviction' that there are no 'gods'... he/she simply does not necessarily believe there are.

"Soft Atheism" is parallel to the 'belief' structure most people would have to, for example, 'Goblins'.

I have posted a link that describes a fundamental breakdown of Atheism (and a little bit about Agnosticism): http://www.wikinfo.org/wiki.php?title=Atheism

Good post Grave.

Good post Grave.

Thank you... I find it frustrating when non-Atheists decide to tell Atheists what Atheism means...

The "Soft Atheist" does not accept any of the stories of gods as factual, does not 'believe' in any 'gods'. This is an ABSENCE of belief - since the "Soft Atheist has no 'conviction' that there are no 'gods'... he/she simply does not necessarily believe there are.

Isn't that contradictorary by saying that the "Soft Atheist" does not believe in any gods, and then saying that the "Soft Atheist" has no conviction that there are no gods? I mean that's not just saying that the "Soft Atheist" believes that there may or may not be a God or Gods, its saying first he/she doesn't believe in any Gods, and then says that they have no strong persuasion that there are no gods?

Isn't that contradictorary by saying that the "Soft Atheist" does not believe in any gods, and then saying that the "Soft Atheist" has no conviction that there are no gods? I mean that's not just saying that the "Soft Atheist" believes that there may or may not be a God or Gods, its saying first he/she doesn't believe in any Gods, and then says that they have no strong persuasion that there are no gods?

"doesn't believe" is very close to "has no conviction", don't you think?

The two terms are not contradictory.

I don't believe in god.... BECAUSE I see no reason to have a belief in god, I see no evidence leaning toward such a belief.

Thus - I do not believe, BECAUSE I can find no conviction, yes?

Indeed. Yes, I know what the answer would be. It would be no.

Exactly... so you do see the consequences of your two answers don't you?

You do not believe in flubberdygubbits and AT THE SAME TIME you do not believe there are no flubberdygubbits.

If "I do not believe in 'X'" meant the same things as "I believe there is no 'X'" then you couldn't answer the way you did to those two questions... but you know both those answers were correct.

So now it should be obvious that those two statements DON'T mean the same thing.

Case closed.


A question for some of you, "If you don't believe in God, or you lack the belief thereof, aren't you still oppinionated in your "lack" of belief, or belief that there is no God?"

Dangit.

You just saw for yourself that even though you lack belief in flubberdygubbits that does NOT mean you have a belief that there are no flubberdygubbits. same thing applies if you substitute "God" or any other term in that statement.

So NO. If you lack belief in God you are NOT opinionated in your belief that there is no God... because a lack of belief in God does not automatically equal a belief there is no God.

The only way you can hide frome isms or beliefs is if you are an a-political, militarily apathetic, and just non oppinionated, agnostic.

Agnostics are not non-opinionated. See post 31.

"doesn't believe" is very close to "has no conviction", don't you think?

The two terms are not contradictory.

I don't believe in god.... BECAUSE I see no reason to have a belief in god, I see no evidence leaning toward such a belief.

Thus - I do not believe, BECAUSE I can find no conviction, yes?

I understand what you are saying. But your wording makes it seem like you do not believe and you have no strong reason not to believe. Check your wording you might find it helpfull.

And Reformentia, I congradulate you. But even if you are Atheist, then you are oppinionated in the aspect of choosing not to have a belief in God, as you are unwilling to submit to antitheism or a theist proposal, and would of course have your own reasons to do so which would be your oppinion. Also, I would like to know the source of your information for post 31.

I was recently reading the thread "Atheist Hypocracy" and decided to make this thread.

As humans we cannot live without a cause unless we are in a perminent state of a coma or loss of cerebral functions. You don't need to be religious in order to believe in something. Take AtheISM for example, although not truly a religion, AtheISM is still the BELIEF that there is no God. Or secular humanISM, or CommunISM, and the list just goes on. If someone can actually prove that it is possible to not believe in anyTHING than go ahead.

Terri Schiavo doesn't believe in anything.

Anyway, as has been said here, atheism is not a belief but a lack of one.

I kinda hate how it's the theists who insist on defining what an atheist is. The atheists on this thread are suggesting there two kinds of atheism, while the theists - of course - are instead choosing to lump all atheists together for simplicity and generalization's sake.

And Reformentia, I congradulate you. But even if you are Atheist,

I am.

then you are oppinionated in the aspect of choosing not to have a belief in God,

It's only choosing if you think belief is entirely volitional, which would be difficult to make a case for.

Beliefs are not simply picked and chosen. For example, could you just decide to start believing in Santa Claus right now? I mean really, seriously believe in a jolly fat man ferried around the world by magical flying reindeer once a year delivering toys to people on his "nice" list? Just decide that you are now all of a sudden convinced of the truth of his existence?

It would be a neat trick if you could, I know I couldn't pull it off.

Beliefs are formed as a consequence of being exposed to information. If you are never exposed to any information which would convince you of the existence of Santa Claus (or anything else) it would be very difficult for you to just decide to start believing in him one afternoon.

as you are unwilling to submit to antitheism or a theist proposal, and

Actually, I was just making a point about the two statements we were discussing not meaning the same thing. I never said I personally didn't believe there is no God... I do.

There are just a lot of people who neither believe God exists nor believe God doesn't exist.

would of course have your own reasons to do so which would be your oppinion. Also, I would like to know the source of your information for post 31.

I assume you mean the part pertaining to agnosticism since the definitions of theist and atheist are fairly well known.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosticism

The use of the term you generally see thrown about on these boards, basically as a "I'm halfway between an atheist and a theist" statement, is a relatively modern invention... and, as I mentioned, one that I find irritating as hell since there IS no halfway between theism and atheism. It's a binary state of affairs. You either possess a belief in a deity (theism) or you don't (atheism).

I understand what you are saying. But your wording makes it seem like you do not believe and you have no strong reason not to believe. Check your wording you might find it helpfull.


That is what I am saying.

I do not believe.

I have no reason to believe.

Do you believe that in goblins? Ghosts? Fairies?

If you think that a 'goblin' would be a conceivable concept - but you don't see any reason to assume that means there ARE goblins... you are a 'goblin-soft-Atheist'.

If you activly believe that it is IMPOSSIBLE that there could be goblins, you are a 'goblin-hard-Atheist'.

One is an 'active' belief, the other, merely a lack of belief.

My personal philosophy isn't an ism


Complete and utter confusion about everything. Being lost is also important.

If you think that a 'goblin' would be a conceivable concept - but you don't see any reason to assume that means there ARE goblins... you are a 'goblin-soft-Atheist'.

No, no, no...

He's a "soft" Agoblinist. ;)

Lack of a belief about God would be agnosticism. To be an atheist, one must afirm that there absolutely is no God - which is a belief.

Arrrghhhh!

See post 31.

My personal philosophy isn't an ism


Complete and utter confusion about everything. Being lost is also important.

Ahaha! That sounds like the ancient asian philosophy... Confusionism!

ba-dum

No, no, no...

He's a "soft" Agoblinist. ;)

I think I might be a Soft Agoblinist. :)

Not because of how I feel about the 'reality' of goblins... just because I like how it sounds. :)

Arrrghhhh!

See post 31.

The definition of a word tells us how it is used, regardless of its root or what people may make up.

The definition of atheist, from Mirriam-Webster, is:

one who believes that there is no deity

Ok, but your now talking about how biases affect your decisions. And Biases influence your oppinion, which is a key part of your beliefs. But my question isn't about religion or lack thereof, its not about beliefs in God(s) or lack of, and its not about proving that Atheism is/is not a belief, it was if it is possible for someone to not have oppinions and beliefs in issues without being braindead.

I'm sorry about making generalizations, but don't we all? I'm assuming that instead of thinking of christians as members of a different sect, I'm Presbyterian myself, you generalize all christians into a group of Evangelist, repent your sins today, street preachers or something.

Terry Schiavo has been dead since last week...

Oh, and thanks for your source.

The definition of a word tells us how it is used, regardless of its root or what people may make up.

The definition of atheist, from Mirriam-Webster, is:

one who believes that there is no deity

Odd, my dictionary definition for 'atheism' gives two, not one conditions.

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

What you describe and insist on pigeonholing all atheists into is the first definition. But the second is also valid and quite cleary a lack of belief, not a belief.

Odd, my dictionary definition for 'atheism' gives two, not one conditions.


*shrug* Mine doesn't. Go figure. I guess that is because dictionaries are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

What you describe and insist on pigeonholing all atheists into is the first definition. But the second is also valid and quite cleary a lack of belief, not a belief.

It just goes to show how malleable language is and that your preferred definition of a word may not agree with another's. As such, it would be better, especially when discussing beliefs, to simply state your position, rather than attempting to use a word that others might interpret differently.

*shrug* Mine doesn't. Go figure. I guess that is because dictionaries are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.

Well in that case you shouldn't have brought it up. :p

It just goes to show how malleable language is and that your preferred definition of a word may not agree with another's. As such, it would be better, especially when discussing beliefs, to simply state your position, rather than attempting to use a word that others might interpret differently.

Of course, I agree.

On the question of God then, when asked if I believe in God, I would answer no. When asked if I believe there is not, and can not be, a God, I would also answer no. I don't think that makes me agnostic unless I also answer that it is impossible to know if there is a God. So, if I'm not agnostic since I haven't taken that agnostic insistance on the inability to know either way, and I'm not a theist because I do not believe in God, I consider myself an atheist.

Makes sense to me....

The definition of a word tells us how it is used, regardless of its root or what people may make up.

The definition of atheist, from Mirriam-Webster, is:

one who believes that there is no deity

Merriam Webster's: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism

athe·ism noun 1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atheism

atheism n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism] 2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Encarta: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861587465

a·the·ism noun unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

The American Heritage Dictionary of English: http://www.bartleby.com/61/52/A0495200.html

a·the·ism NOUN: 1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

So like I said...

Mainly I wanted to clear up the whole argument of what an atheist is and believes.

Atheism has no church, no doctrine, no leader, no central body, no set of rules. It is not a club, society, organization or religion. We account to no authority regarding our beliefs about deities or religion, or lack thereof. Hell, we don't account to each other. Because of this, no one person can say "this is atheism and nothing else". We're a bunch of individuals who are all free to come to our own conclusions.

As to the rest of the argument, people seem not to understand the difference between knowing with believing.

I'm an atheist and I have beliefs. I believe that there is no god or higher power. I believe that neither heavenly reward, nor firey punishment awaits me at my death. I believe the choices made by humans are absolutely responsible for the past, current and future state of humanity, and our world.

I believe many things besides this, but those are some of the basics.

I do not know these things to be true, but I believe them to be true.

The only thing remotely interesting about the "God exists, yes or no" challenge is the fact that people never tire of it.

http://www.westirondequoit.org/Technology/K-6/IMAGES/feudalism.gif

Feudalism all the way!

I BELIEVE that this cricket ball, which I hold in my hand, is red.
I can see it is red. Every other cricket ball I have seen was also red.
I don't KNOW it is red, because it might be a trick of the light, or my eyes are deceiving me, or the memories of previous balls might cloud my interpretation.
I don't BELIEVE that it is blue. The evidence does not point to it being so. but it could conceivebly be blue.

So your point is that you're one of the people who doesn't know the difference between belief and knowledge?

Pity.

Atheism has no church, no doctrine, no leader, no central body, no set of rules. It is not a club, society, organization or religion. We account to no authority regarding our beliefs about deities or religion, or lack thereof. Hell, we don't account to each other. Because of this, no one person can say "this is atheism and nothing else". We're a bunch of individuals who are all free to come to our own conclusions.

So you're saying that "American Athiests" is non-existant and has no followers?

So, you're completely apathetic to all the happenings and issues in the world?
Of course not. I just don't believe in things. I have predictions on whether or not something will happen, but no beliefs.

So you're saying that "American Athiests" is non-existant and has no followers?

They're just a subset of atheism.

Just like Christianity isn't "theism". It's just one particular group of theists among many, with the only thing all theists have in common being that they believe in a deity of some sort or another.

The only thing all atheists have in common is that they DON'T believe in a deity.

"Theism" and "atheism" are very high level general categories that don't involve leaders, organizational structures, doctrines, etc...they only concern themselves with whether you do or not have a belief in a deity. Other sub-groups WITHIN these two groups is where you find all that other stuff.

Theists = Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc...

Atheists = Secular Humanists, groups like "American Atheists", etc...

Of course not. I just don't believe in things. I have predictions on whether or not something will happen, but no beliefs.

No political stance... interesting. Alright thanks for proving that it is possible to not have any beliefs and not be brain dead.

They're just a subset of atheism.

Just like Christianity isn't "theism". It's just one particular group of theists among many, with the only thing all theists have in common being that they believe in a deity of some sort or another.

The only thing all atheists have in common is that they DON'T believe in a deity.

"Theism" and "atheism" are very high level general categories that don't involve leaders, organizational structures, doctrines, etc...they only concern themselves with whether you do or not have a belief in a deity. Other sub-groups WITHIN these two groups is where you find all that other stuff.

Theists = Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc...

Atheists = Secular Humanists, groups like "American Atheists", etc...

All subgroups have subgroups. Ok well thats interesting cause you just said it yourself that even atheists (the subgroups that is) have their own individual beliefs.

They are not either unescapable. Nothing is unescapable.

<script type="text/javascript">
alert(unescape("isms"));
</script>

Incidentally, I don't believe in anything. I disprove your idea.


You believe that you don't believe in anything. Therefore you proved the idea. :p

What I hate is when people are like-
-Evoltution proves the Bible wrong.
+Evolution must be wrong then.
-You are wrong.
-Exhibit A. Monkeys
+Exhibit B. Genesis 1:1

People,

The Bible says nothing about evolution being false. We know evolution is real.
The Bible says that God created the Earth in one day. It also says one second for could be ten thousand years in God's eyes. That disproves the idea that the Big Bang disproves Christianity. If people were not so ignorant, there could make a real argument.

What I hate is when people are like-
-Evoltution proves the Bible wrong.
+Evolution must be wrong then.
-You are wrong.
-Exhibit A. Monkeys
+Exhibit B. Genesis 1:1

People,

The Bible says nothing about evolution being false. We know evolution is real.
The Bible says that God created the Earth in one day. It also says one second for could be ten thousand years in God's eyes. That disproves the idea that the Big Bang disproves Christianity. If people were not so ignorant, there could make a real argument.

Evolution is a theory, A good and widely accepted scientific theory but still a theory.

Actually there are two creation stories in the Bible. One of Adam and Eve, and then the God created the Universe in seven days one.

Yeah but the funny thing is a Catholic Priest thought up the theory now known as the Big Bang, in the early 20th century.

Evolution is a theory, A good and widely accepted scientific theory but still a theory.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Fact: Humans and other animals on earth evolved from common ancestors.

The evidence that this occured is beyond overwhelming. It is quite possibly the single most extensively evidentially supported fact in the history of the scientific endeavour. Nobody who knows the first thing about the field has questioned this in over a century any more than they have questioned the generally spherical shape of the earth

Theory: How that happened. (Mutation, Random Genetic drift, Natural Selection, etc...)

Also, please keep in mind that a scientific theory is not just "a good theory". It is almost completely different in nature than what people generally mean when they use the word "theory" in everyday conversation. A scientific theory is the end product of the application of the scientific method. As far as science is concerned it is the current be-all end-all explanation indicated by ALL available evidence and contra-indicated by NONE. It has been extensively tested by diverse, independent groups of researchers. It has survived multiple trials in which it could have been falsified if it was indeed false.

There is no explanation in science that enjoys higher confidence in it's validity than a theory. None. Theories are the top of the food chain.

I know what a scientific theory is. I know alot about science, otherwise I wouldn't be going in to honors Bio Next year, And planning on going to Cornell as a finishing school for my Grad's degree in Biochem, when I reach that point, still a few years away.

Science is my passion, I enjoy researching it.

Yes, Scientific theory is the most accepted and proven hypothesis there is. But, no matter how hard the evidence is, evolution is still a scientific theory. I am not a creationist so don't go there.

I know what a scientific theory is. I know alot about science, otherwise I wouldn't be going in to honors Bio Next year, And planning on going to Cornell as a finishing school for my Grad's degree in Biochem, when I reach that point, still a few years away.

Science is my passion, I enjoy researching it.

Yes, Scientific theory is the most accepted and proven hypothesis there is. But, no matter how hard the evidence is, evolution is still a scientific theory. I am not a creationist so don't go there.

What do you mean by "still a scientific theory"?

Science doesn't claim to have 'truth'.

It 'claims' to offer likely explanations for observations - which is the most fundamental difference between science and theology, since theology claims to give 'truths'.

If you want 'truths', I would advise against a career path in the sciences, because you will be chasing something that isn't 'there'.

But, if you are willing to accept the premise that there are many things we cannot 'know' scientifically - then science may work for you.

(That doesn't mean you cannot be a religious person AND a scientist, just that you need to understand that there are two different arenas, and they operate on different 'rules').

I was recently reading the thread "Atheist Hypocracy" and decided to make this thread.

As humans we cannot live without a cause unless we are in a perminent state of a coma or loss of cerebral functions. You don't need to be religious in order to believe in something. Take AtheISM for example, although not truly a religion, AtheISM is still the BELIEF that there is no God. Or secular humanISM, or CommunISM, and the list just goes on. If someone can actually prove that it is possible to not believe in anyTHING than go ahead.

It's called nihilism.

Yes, Scientific theory is the most accepted and proven hypothesis there is. But, no matter how hard the evidence is, evolution is still a scientific theory.

And a scientific fact.

THAT evolution occured = fact.
HOW and WHY evolution occured = theory.

Theories are the scientific frameworks which explain facts.

You are quite correct that no matter how hard the evidence the theory of evolution will always remain a theory... because it will always remain the explanation of how and why evolution occured which is what a scientific theory is... just do not forget that the theory of evolution is what explains the fact of evolution (that evolution occured, and continues to occur).

Exactly the same way as the theory of electromagnetism explains the fact of electromagnetism (that electromagnetism exists)... or the germ theory of disease explains the fact of disease (that people get diseases)... etc...