NationStates Jolt Archive

According to the "what's your religion" thread, there is a significant percentage of Atheists on this forum. I'd just like to get a breakdown of what sort of Atheists people are.

What are our options?

Just posted 'em.

Just posted 'em.

None fit me...

I am nonreligious, or agnostic, however you want to put it. I think religion unreasonable and any attempt to define or study religion as a truth will end with no more answers than it started with.

I also believe that there is an objective morality, but like religion, it is impossible to define as it would require perfect knowledge and perfect reason.

Doesn't know whether or not there is a god, morality is subjective
Doesn't know whether or not there is a god, morality is objective

That's an agnostic.

That's an agnostic.
Not nessisarily ... agnostic is the belief that you can not PROVE a deity

You can have deistic agnostic as well as atheistic agnostic

Dont confuse uncertanty with agnosticism

That's an agnostic.

I agree, but some people like that call themselves atheist, so I included it.

None fit me...

What would fit you?

Since I believe there is no way to prove whether there is a God or not, then I can't know whether there is a God or not, so I don't know whether there is a God or not.

Do you count Satanists as atheists? We don't believe in a god per se.

Do you count Satanists as atheists? We don't believe in a god per se.

To be a Satanist, you have to believe in God, so that you can rebel against God. You cannot be an atheist when you are rebelling against a god.

What would fit you?

"I just don't believe." Really, my atheism isn't much more thought out than my disbelief in fairies or Zeus. I don't need arguments for those, and I don't need arguments for not believing in any other deity/mythical figure/magic. :\

No, we rebel against the morals that god stands for.

No, we rebel against the morals that god stands for.

Whatever, a god exists in your life. That means you believe in a god and rebel against his morals. Not atheism.

That's an agnostic.
No, it's atheist. The choices are atheism and theism. Agnosticism is properly orthogonal to both. It is not a 3rd option.

To be a Satanist, you have to believe in God, so that you can rebel against God.
No, that's a devil worshipper/luciferian. A satanist is different.

No, it's atheist. The choices are atheism and theism. Agnosticism is properly orthogonal to both. It is not a 3rd option.

It is most definitely a third option. How the hell am I supposed to know whether there is a God or not? I can't lean towards either side by staying true to my logic.

God may exist, but may never have shown it. Similarly, God can not exist.

How the heck am I supposed to know? If I don't know, why should I choose one?

I'm not being clear. We celebrate and worship our own lives and make ourselves divine. The only gods we have are ourselves. I can see how that might be misunderstood though. I consider myself both.

No, that's a devil worshipper/luciferian. A satanist is different.

So a Satanist is an atheist that wants Religion eliminated from the world?
Or is it just a person that doesn't believe in God, but goes against what other people say God's morals are?

I'm not being clear. We celebrate and worship our own lives and make ourselves divine. The only gods we have are ourselves. I can see how that might be misunderstood though. I consider myself both.

How can you rebel against God's morals then? You can't rebel against something that doesn't exist, nor against something that belongs to something that doesn't exist. Either you rebel against God, and thus acknowledge the existance of a God, or you just don't believe in God.

It is most definitely a third option.
It most definitely is not a 3rd option.

Agnosticism is a modifier of belief of knowledge, not a modifier of belief in existence.

You can't just be "agnostic" anyway, since that would mean that you lack all knowledge of yourself, the external world, things in the external world, language, grammar, syntax, etc. But you know those things, so you can't be agnostic!

Atheism is not specifically the outright denial that there is a god. You foolishly believe that it is. Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods. So if you claim that you don't know if there is or isn't, then you don't have belief in god, so you're an atheist.

QED.

We want every one to realize that life should be fun. Whatever reason we have it, wheter it was given to us or was just an accident, it should be lived to the fullest, with no reservations based on morals.

It most definitely is not a 3rd option.

You're very evangelical about this.

God does exist, in a sense, because people believe in him.

So a Satanist is an atheist that wants Religion eliminated from the world?
Or is it just a person that doesn't believe in God, but goes against what other people say God's morals are?

Satanism, in one of its variants, is a doctrine similar to secular humanism. It's got its own specific thoughts about it, though.

Atheism:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Theism:

: belief in the existence of a god or gods


How about no belief in the existence of a deity. If by your standards that puts me as an atheist, so be it, but you're warping the definitions then.
With your warp of the definitions, of course you are right.
I always thought Atheism meant you believe there is no god, and Theism you believe there is a god(s), and agnosticism that you don't believe either one.

But you've changed your definitions of Atheism to mean just not believing in God. Merriam Webster's definition states is as a "disbelief" in God, so you have to disbelieve God's existence. I have no belief.

Will not believe in gods even if proven, morality is subjective 4
Will not believe in gods even if proven, morality is objective 1

Who the hell was dumb enough to vote for these two? That's like not believing someone's your dad after seeing the DNA evidence...or not believing that 2+2=4 after you count in out on your fingers...

Don't be stupid people. I know it's a lot to ask...but please...

So a Satanist is an atheist that wants Religion eliminated from the world?
Not exactly. It's a little complex, but they certainly aren't devil worshippers.


Or is it just a person that doesn't believe in God, but goes against what other people say God's morals are?
Best I can give you for info is their info pack (http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/cosinfopack.pdf)

God does exist, in a sense, because people believe in him.

Let's not get into that.

Dictionary.com defines agnostic as:
A. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
B. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

You're very evangelical about this.
Is a math teacher evangelical about 2 + 2 being 4? How about an English teacher being evangelical about there being no such word as "brang"?

Get the hint?

I like religions that define "god" more as a natural force in the world with governance over our lives rather than a superbeing that created the universe. Could be a part of the physics of the universe, or maybe something more spiritual kind of like the lifestream from Final Fantasy 7, who knows? Though I certainly don't discount the possibility of it being a "creator being".

I just don't like living in a world with a ton of different groups telling me I'm gonna go to someplace horrible when I die for not believeing what they believe. Kind of a lose-lose situation, so I'll just live right, yadda yadda yadda.

... and certainly take lessons from all religions, they all have something to offer.

"I just don't believe." Really, my atheism isn't much more thought out than my disbelief in fairies or Zeus. I don't need arguments for those, and I don't need arguments for not believing in any other deity/mythical figure/magic. :\

Any of the last four could theoretically fit you. Your disbelief seems to mostly be based simply on the fact that nothing suggests otherwise, so I would suggest one of the middle two. If you don't think they are accurate, you are free to not vote.

Atheism:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Theism:

: belief in the existence of a god or gods


How about no belief in the existence of a deity. If by your standards that puts me as an atheist, so be it, but you're warping the definitions then.
No, I'm not. Disbelief is to not believe. It has a passive sense.


I always thought Atheism meant you believe there is no god, and Theism you believe there is a god(s), and agnosticism that you don't believe either one.
You thought incorrectly.


But you've changed your definitions of Atheism to mean just not believing in God. Merriam Webster's definition states is as a "disbelief" in God, so you have to disbelieve God's existence.
Yes, and you can disbelieve in a passive sense. Why don't you look it up at m-w.com and apologize to me, m'kay?

Is a math teacher evangelical about 2 + 2 being 4? How about an English teacher being evangelical about there being no such word as "brang"?

Get the hint?

We're just mixed up on our definitions.

If you don't think they are accurate, you are free to not vote.

Gee, thanks! ;) :fluffle:

Dictionary.com defines agnostic as:
A. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
B. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
And that's technically incorrect, since atheism is simply the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods, and not the outright denial that most people think it is.

Look:

a + theos + ism

lacking/without + god/gods + belief

Simple, really.

We're just mixed up on our definitions.
If by "we" you mean "Everyone who thinks that atheism is strictly and solely the outright denial that there is a god", then you're correct.

Is a math teacher evangelical about 2 + 2 being 4? How about an English teacher being evangelical about there being no such word as "brang"?

Get the hint?

They don't post it thread after thread... just saying, you're being a bit eager, is all. And, no, your stance is not comparable to the first type of person you mentioned.

Let's not get into that.

Aw hell...why not? How many people out there devote their lives to things based on faith...blind faith...but faith nonetheless? How many people die because of this or another "god?" Do the effects of "God" make "him" a reality?

If by "we" you mean "Everyone who thinks that atheism is strictly and solely the outright denial that there is a god", then you're correct.
Yes agreed

That and thoes who think agnosticism is a position of indecision

They don't post it thread after thread... just saying, you're being a bit eager, is all.
No, I'm just correct.


And, no, your stance is not comparable to the first type of person you mentioned.
Actually, it is.

No, I'm just correct.

I understand you'd like to believe so.

Actually, it is.

I understand you'd like to believe so.

Atheism:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Theism:

: belief in the existence of a god or gods


How about no belief in the existence of a deity. If by your standards that puts me as an atheist, so be it, but you're warping the definitions then.
With your warp of the definitions, of course you are right.
I always thought Atheism meant you believe there is no god, and Theism you believe there is a god(s), and agnosticism that you don't believe either one.

But you've changed your definitions of Atheism to mean just not believing in God. Merriam Webster's definition states is as a "disbelief" in God, so you have to disbelieve God's existence. I have no belief.

Many people who think there isn't any real evidence to either side still consider themselves atheists because they assume nonexistence of god in most cases. If you consider yourself agnostic you really don't need to respond.

No, I'm not. Disbelief is to not believe. It has a passive sense.

Disbelief is to do the opposite of believe.

Statement X.

I believe it means that you believe Statement X is true.
I disbelieve it means that you believe Statement X is false, or you don't believe it is true.
I don't know means that you cannot choose either side, because you have no idea. When you have no idea, you cannot choose to believe or to not believe.

That is what you're forcing on to me. I have no idea whether God exists or not. Yet you are forcing me to either believe in him or not believe in him. I have insufficient reasoning to believe in him, and insufficient reasoning to not believe in him. I don't know!

But fine, if you're forcing me to pick a side... eenie, meenie, miney, moe...

and apologize to me, m'kay?

Please don't be condescending. Show some character.

I understand you'd like to believe so.
No, I know that I am.

Unless, of course, you'd care to show how my breakdown of the word "atheism" is wrong.

Would you like to step up to the plate?

If by "we" you mean "Everyone who thinks that atheism is strictly and solely the outright denial that there is a god", then you're correct.

No, I don't care what words you put in my mouth. By we I meant you and me.

I meant you have a definition of Atheism different than I have a definition of Atheism. I don't care about anyone else. I was talking about us two. If it applies to others, great, but we're addressing each other.

No, I'm just correct.

No! *I'm* just correct. :rolleyes:

No, I know that I am.

Unless, of course, you'd care to show how my breakdown of the word "atheism" is wrong.

Would you like to step up to the plate?

I guess mirroring your condescension and high horse didn't make them all that apparent to you. Aw, well.

Disbelief is to do the opposite of believe.


Main Entry: dis·be·lieve
Pronunciation: -'lEv
Function: verb
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief

Since disbelief stems from disbelieving....


Statement X.

I believe it means that you believe Statement X is true.
I disbelieve it means that you believe Statement X is false, or you don't believe it is true.
I don't know means that you cannot choose either side,
Yes, you do. You choose the second.

Nothing but reality is being "forced" upon you. If you don't like that, then frankly, you're a coward. And I don't say that to be mean or to insult you. If you take it as such, that is your prerogative.

And if you don't want me to be "condescending", then please don't act like a git.

I guess mirroring your condescension and high horse didn't make them all that apparent to you.
You didn't. Aw, well--you conceded, too.

No, I don't care what words you put in my mouth. By we I meant you and me.
No, since I know what the definition is.

"We" then must mean "The mouse in my pocket and I".

That's an agnostic.

No. It's not.

www.dictionary.com

Use it.

Yes, you do. You choose the second.

Who are you to tell me that I don't believe it is true? I have no idea whether it's true or not! So the default position is to believe it isn't true?

There is a God.

I don't know. However, the default position is to believe it isn't true, thus I believe there is no God.

There is no God.

I don't know. However, the default position is to believe it isn't true, thus I believe there is a God.

So I believe different things according to the way it's worded?

Nothing but reality is being "forced" upon you. If you don't like that, then frankly, you're a coward. And I don't say that to be mean or to insult you. If you take it as such, that is your prerogative.

Yes, I am a coward. I'm a coward to pick a side. Why? Because I don't have any idea which one is right. If it makes me a coward to refrain from choosing out of 2 choices I have no idea about, then I guess that's what I am.

And if you don't want me to be "condescending", then please don't act like a git.

PLEASE be mature! I beg of you, act mature and show some character.

No, I know that I am.

Unless, of course, you'd care to show how my breakdown of the word "atheism" is wrong.

Would you like to step up to the plate?

Not that I'm saying you're wrong...but just for fun...

Your ability to breakdown a word's roots or origninal meanings means little. What matters is the perception of what the word means in today's culture and society. Perception states that an athesist is one who deny's the existance of God or a god, regardless of what the word originally meant.

Example: Awful originally meant something that was full of awe. It was, in a sense, better than something that is "awsome" because in that case there is only some awe, not a full amount. This is still seen when using "awfully" such as "that's an awfully sexy dress you're wearing."

Still, tell your date that her dress is awful, and you'll get slapped, not hugged. Why is this? It's because the word awful, over time, has gotten a bad connotation. "Fuck" was a word describing a sound a farmer makes with a hoe (haha...the irony) in his field, much like "bark" is the sound a dog makes. Still, who would say they are "fucking their field?"

It doesn't matter what the word Atheism's roots are; what matters is how it applies today. That and the fact that many, if not nearly all, atheists deny God or a god, and you get what Atheism means today.

I'm agnostic when it comes to religion. I have no proof that god exists, and I won't waste my time on an idea of something that may be. There are too many real things in this world to be more concerned about. That being said, people who deny God with the same amount of proof are equally as ignorant than those who worship him. You don't know...and you can't make an informed decision about the topic.

No, since I know what the definition is.

"We" then must mean "The mouse in my pocket and I".

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you're always right.

So if we both have the definitions on a particular word different, then the default position (only position) is that you're right. Alright, another thing to know.

Who are you to tell me that I don't believe it is true?
You told me it.


I have no idea whether it's true or not! So the default position is to believe it isn't true?
No, the default position is to simply not believe.


Yes, I am a coward. I'm a coward to pick a side. Why? Because I don't have any idea which one is right.
You're still incorrectly thinking that atheism is solely and only the outright denial that there is a god.

Look, is there a middle between on and off? Is there a middle between a woman being pregnant and not being pregnant? How about a middle between having shoes and not having shoes?

Same. Idea.

I am being mature. Whatever would give you the silly notion that I'm not? Is it because I'm making way too much sense?

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know you're always right.
Oh, I'm sorry--I didn't realize how infantile you are. When you're shown to be wrong, you throw a fit. Gotcha.

Hint: if you want to dispute me, you'd best be able to show how my breakdown of the word "atheism" is in error. Until then, throw a tantrum somewhere else or at someone who cares. Capice?

Not that I'm saying you're wrong...but just for fun...

Your ability to breakdown a word's roots or origninal meanings means little.
No, it means a lot.

[snip irrelevancies]


What matters is the perception of what the word means in today's culture and society. Perception states that an athesist is one who deny's the existance of God or a god, regardless of what the word originally meant.
No, it's not perception that states it; rather it is colloquial and imprecise usage.

[snip irrelevancies]

It doesn't matter what the word Atheism's roots are; what matters is how it applies today. That and the fact that many, if not nearly all, atheists deny God or a god, and you get what Atheism means today.
Yes: lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.


I'm agnostic when it comes to religion.
Agnostic what?

me myself am an atheist, to me being atheist is just knowing that there is no superior force out there and when you die you juss go poof and thats it nothing else whatsoever

You told me it.

No, the default position is to simply not believe.

You're still incorrectly thinking that atheism is solely and only the outright denial that there is a god.

Look, is there a middle between on and off? Is there a middle between a woman being pregnant and not being pregnant? How about a middle between having shoes and not having shoes?

Same. Idea.

I am being mature. Whatever would give you the silly notion that I'm not? Is it because I'm making way too much sense?

There is a third option with pregnant vs. empty womb: being male. Most people who call themselves Agnostic simply don't take either side. It's not a debate that matters to them. It's like the question of whether you enjoy having gay oral sex or gay anal sex. You would probably say (unless you're gay, in which case no offense) that they are both not things that you enjoy.

You told me it.

I told you I don't know what to believe. I did not tell you I did not believe nor that I believe.

No, the default position is to simply not believe.

There is no default position. I told you my position. I don't know what to believe.

You're still incorrectly thinking that atheism is solely and only the outright denial that there is a god.

Look, is there a middle between on and off? Is there a middle between a woman being pregnant and not being pregnant? How about a middle between having shoes and not having shoes?

You are right to an extent. It is true that there either is a god, or there isn't a god. However, beliefs don't work that way.

Is the light in my room on or off? You have no idea. You can't say that it's on or that it's off since you have absolutely no information. Therefore, the logical answer is "I don't know". Have you picked a side? Have you chosen that it's on or that it's off? No, you haven't, because you don't know.

Is a girl I know Sarah pregnant? How can you possibly say yes or no when you have no information? In truth, she's either pregnant, or she isn't pregnant. But in belief, you can either believe that she's pregnant, that she isn't pregnant, or believe nothing because you have insufficient information.

So, is the light in my room on or off? According to you, there is no third option, so you can only choose on or off, and you have to explain your reasoning.

I am being mature. Whatever would give you the silly notion that I'm not? Is it because I'm making way too much sense?

It's because you're automatically assuming you're right and refuse to accept the possibility that you might be wrong. That's not immature actually... it's arrogance.

If you don't see what's wrong with that, then imagine me doing it.

Oh, I'm sorry--I didn't realize how infantile you are. When you're shown to be wrong, you throw a fit. Gotcha.

I'm the one that's being infantile? That's a fit?

When I say we got our definitions mixed up, you immediately respond that I'm wrong and you're right, which is kind of arrogant if not immature.

And it's not a fit, it's sarcasm.

Hint: if you want to dispute me, you'd best be able to show how my breakdown of the word "atheism" is in error. Until then, throw a tantrum somewhere else or at someone who cares. Capice?

Tantrum? What is wrong with you?

You say something and then start claiming it is right and you cannot possibly be wrong. I use sarcasm to show the error in your thinking and you start proclaiming that I'm throwing a fit and a tantrum.

There is a third option with pregnant vs. empty womb: being male.
No, since the context was of female.


Most people who call themselves Agnostic simply don't take either side.
Yet they are on one side or the other. There is no middle.

"What kind of atheist are you?"

The kind that doesn't know which is dumber: believing that the Bible is to be taken word for word literally, or trying to "prove" God doesn't exist! :p

Yet they are on one side or the other. There is no middle.

So everyone KNOWS whether there is a god or not?

You told me it.
I told you I don't know what to believe. I did not tell you I did not believe nor that I believe.
If you don't know what to believe, then clearly you do not have the believe that there is a god, and clearly then you lack the belief that there is a god, and clearly then you are an atheist.

So clearly, you told me your position.

It's called logical progression and logical consequences; learn it.



No, the default position is to simply not believe.
There is no default position.
Yes, there is: to not believe. When you're born, you don't believe that there is a god, do you?



You're still incorrectly thinking that atheism is solely and only the outright denial that there is a god.

Look, is there a middle between on and off? Is there a middle between a woman being pregnant and not being pregnant? How about a middle between having shoes and not having shoes?
You are right to an extent. It is true that there either is a god, or there isn't a god. However, beliefs don't work that way.
Yes, they actually do. You either HAVE the belief or you DO NOT HAVE the belief. There is no middle.


Is the light in my room on or off? You have no idea. You can't say that it's on or that it's off since you have absolutely no information. Therefore, the logical answer is "I don't know".
Therefore, you do not have the belief that the light it on, similar to not having the belief that there is a god.

You just proved my point for me. Thank you.



I am being mature. Whatever would give you the silly notion that I'm not? Is it because I'm making way too much sense?
It's because you're automatically assuming you're right
No, I happen to know that I'm correct.


and refuse to accept the possibility that you might be wrong.
I can't be wrong anymore than I could be wrong in stating 1 = 1. It's simply not possible, given the evidence I've provided.

What is immature is denying the evidence and screaming at reality that you want reality to go away, leave you alone, and not make you think.

Is a math teacher evangelical about 2 + 2 being 4? How about an English teacher being evangelical about there being no such word as "brang"?

Get the hint?

And that English teacher would be FIRED

http://www.grampastudios.com/brang.html

"What is Brang?" The best answer I can give is it's a result of a combination of things; my friendship with Po Gyzer and Kyle Sims, drugs in my youth, fun with phonetics and hanging out with slightly exhausted cutlets.

So everyone KNOWS whether there is a god or not?
*sigh*

It's about belief or lack of belief. If you believe that there is a god, you're a theist. If you do not believe that there is a god/do not have the belief that there is a god/don't know/don't care, you're an atheist. It's that simple.

Yet they are on one side or the other. There is no middle.
While I do agree that when you talk about agnostics there are atheist agnostics and there at theist agnostics. However I am wondering why you don't classify it as a third choice. I mean there are some people who believe in a singular god defined in beliefs and there are people who do not believe in any gods. Where does agnostics fall? They don't fall in the first area and they also do not fall into the second so where do they go?

I agree, but some people like that call themselves atheist, so I included it.
'Agree' all you like... you'll still be wrong.

Look at UpwardThrust's erudite explanation of why....

Oh, I'm sorry--I didn't realize how infantile you are. When you're shown to be wrong, you throw a fit. Gotcha.
I'm the one that's being infantile?
Yes. You're having a fit that you are an atheist, and that you were incorrect in your definition of atheism.

If you define a car as "an animal with horns and gives milk", and I tell you that you're wrong, are you going to tell me that I'm arrogant for telling you that I know that you're wrong?

Well that's precisely what you're doing to me now.



Hint: if you want to dispute me, you'd best be able to show how my breakdown of the word "atheism" is in error. Until then, throw a tantrum somewhere else or at someone who cares. Capice?
Tantrum? What is wrong with you?
Nothing. What's wrong with you that you are pitching a fit?


You say something and then start claiming it is right and you cannot possibly be wrong.
I can't be, as I have shown.


I use sarcasm to show the error in your thinking and you start proclaiming that I'm throwing a fit and a tantrum.
But you didn't show any errors in my thinking.

Again: anytime you want to show where my error lies in my breakdown of the word "atheism", please feel free. I would welcome it. As it stands, no one has been able to show how one bit of it is wrong.

Whatever, a god exists in your life. That means you believe in a god and rebel against his morals. Not atheism.

Not paying attention.

The clear implication is that 'god' is symbolic.... the Satanist rebels against what 'god' MEANS.... that doesn't automatically equate to believing 'god' is a real thing.

While I do agree that when you talk about agnostics there are atheist agnostics and there at theist agnostics. However I am wondering why you don't classify it as a third choice.
Because it's a modifier of knowledge of something, not belief in the existence of something. It's orthogonal to both.


I mean there are some people who believe in a singular god defined in beliefs and there are people who do not believe in any gods. Where does agnostics fall?
If they believe that there is a god, but don't know what it is, they are theists. If they don't believe that there is a god, and don't know what god is, they are atheists.

If they believe that there is a god, but don't know what it is, they are theists. If they don't believe that there is a god, and don't know what god is, they are atheists.
But what if they acknowledge the possibility for both while believing neither?

Not paying attention.

The clear implication is that 'god' is symbolic.... the Satanist rebels against what 'god' MEANS.... that doesn't automatically equate to believing 'god' is a real thing.

Which begs the question: Why the hell are they called satanists? Would not anti-christian atheist work much better? And sound so much better?

You didn't answer my question. Is my the light in my room on or off? And you may not say that you do not know.

If you don't know what to believe, then clearly you do not have the believe that there is a god, and clearly then you lack the belief that there is a god, and clearly then you are an atheist.

I lack the belief of a god, but I accept both possibilities. I don't know which one is right so I accept both as equally possible.

I lack the belief there is a god. I also lack the belief there is no god.

It's called logical progression and logical consequences; learn it.

Stop acting so smug. I'm getting tired of it.

Yes, there is: to not believe. When you're born, you don't believe that there is a god, do you?

But you don't believe there is no god either. You don't believe anything.

You lack the belief that there is a god and lack the belief that there is no god. You believe nothing and thus believe neither one.

Yes, they actually do. You either HAVE the belief or you DO NOT HAVE the belief. There is no middle.

Don't have either belief. I don't have the belief there is a god. I don't have the belief there is no god. I believe NOTHING. When I believe NOTHING, you cannot attribute a value to my believing nothing.

Therefore, you do not have the belief that the light it on, similar to not having the belief that there is a god.

You also do not have the belief that the light is off.

Well, let's say you're right then. Ok, so you don't have the belief that the light is on, so it's off? Explain your reasoning.

You just proved my point for me. Thank you.

Like I said, stop being smug.

No, I happen to know that I'm correct.

Fine, I'll try being childish.

No, *I* happen to know that *I'm* correct. You're wrong!

I can't be wrong anymore than I could be wrong in stating 1 = 1. It's simply not possible, given the evidence I've provided.

Well I can't possibly be wrong any more than if I said x=x. It's not possible, therefore I am right and you are wrong. Yay, I win.

What is immature is denying the evidence and screaming at reality that you want reality to go away, leave you alone, and not make you think.

Stating that for every yes/no question, you MUST take a position of yes/no, is illogical. There's the option of not answering the question because you don't know. Not answering the question does not automatically make you answer no.

*sigh*

It's about belief or lack of belief. If you believe that there is a god, you're a theist. If you do not believe that there is a god/do not have the belief that there is a god/don't know/don't care, you're an atheist. It's that simple.

Don't know/don't care falls into the agnostic section.

There is a God - Theist
There is no God - Atheist
I take no stance - Agnostic

But what if they acknowledge the possibility for both while believing neither?
You're using the "atheism is only the denial there there is a god" definition, aren't you?

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence in a god or gods. Ergo.....

Don't know/don't care falls into the agnostic section.

There is a God - Theist
There is no God - Atheist
I take no stance - Agnostic
Wrong


Agnostic - I dont believe it can be PROVEN

agnostic is NOT a stance of indecision

You're using the "atheism is only the denial there there is a god" definition, aren't you?

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence in a god or gods. Ergo.....

But what if you don't lack a belief in god, what if you take no stance and say we can't know? What if you say there could be a god and there could not be a god so I'm not going to make a choice on incomplete evidence?

Yes. You're having a fit that you are an atheist, and that you were incorrect in your definition of atheism.

Stop trying to suggest I'm having a fit. How can you know whether I'm having a fit or not? It's an Internet forum.

If you define a car as "an animal with horns and gives milk", and I tell you that you're wrong, are you going to tell me that I'm arrogant for telling you that I know that you're wrong?

Well that's precisely what you're doing to me now.

No, that's precisely what you're doing to ME now. You're saying something like that which I KNOW is wrong.

Nothing. What's wrong with you that you are pitching a fit?

No, *you're* pitching a fit. Even though I have no idea of your expression and emotion since this is an Internet forum, I will nonetheless claim you're pitching a fit.

I can't be, as I have shown.

Neither can I, as I have shown.

But you didn't show any errors in my thinking.

You didn't show any errors in my thinking either.

Again: anytime you want to show where my error lies in my breakdown of the word "atheism", please feel free. I would welcome it. As it stands, no one has been able to show how one bit of it is wrong.

Of course not. If you ignore the things that you don't like and just start spouting off arguments, without possibly accepting that you might be wrong, you yourself will never be proven wrong. You might be proven wrong in the eyes of others, but not in your eyes.

But what if you don't lack a belief in god, what if you take no stance and say we can't know? What if you say there could be a god and there could not be a god so I'm not going to make a choice on incomplete evidence?
Then it sounds like you are And agnostic Non-theist

Non theist ... being your position on the deity
and agnostic your belief that god is not provable

So everyone KNOWS whether there is a god or not?

Not at all.

For example, until a child is OLD enough to have learned about the EXISTENCE of the concept of 'god', that child has no 'belief' about 'god'.

Thus - up until that point, the child does not have a 'belief in god'.

Thus - we are ALL Implicit Atheists, at least, until we learn more.

Wrong


Agnostic - I dont believe it can be PROVEN

agnostic is NOT a stance of indecision

Agnostic means no knowledge. There is insufficient knowledge to take a stance.
Or, as you might want it, insufficient proof to take a stance.

Not at all.

For example, until a child is OLD enough to have learned about the EXISTENCE of the concept of 'god', that child has no 'belief' about 'god'.

Thus - up until that point, the child does not have a 'belief in god'.

Thus - we are ALL Implicit Atheists, at least, until we learn more.
Maybe we should just do away with atheist and do Anti -theist and Non Theist (anti being explicit non being implicit)
people cant seemt to grasp the atheist concept

Agnosticism is technically atheism. Atheism being the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists therefore either are disbelieving in god, by which I mean they actively believe there is no god. Or they do not claim to know whether god exists or not.

So an agnostic is technically an atheist, but agnosticism offers a finer gradation of definition as to exactly what the persons stance on theism is. So most agnostics will refer to themselves as agnostics rather than atheists.
Usage is not particularly relevant, since there are many usages of both atheism and agnosticism. Including the original meanings. None of which are more prevalent than the other, especially considering we are using a media that means that persons from all over the world could be taking part in the discussion.

I am an agnostic... sort of. I know that it is impossible to know whether a god or gods exist or not. On the other hand, I find the description of the gods worshipped by most major religions so ridiculous, that I don't think that they could possibly exist.

So I concede that there could be some god out there, but I don't think that it would be like any god from any religion that I have ever heard of.

For those who don't actually know anything about Satanism beyond what's been fed them by the media I suggest you check out www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/satanism.htm)

Agnostic means no knowledge. There is insufficient knowledge to take a stance.
Or, as you might want it, insufficient proof to take a stance.
No Agnostic is your belief on the ABILITY to have knoledge or proof

There is a difference

Which begs the question: Why the hell are they called satanists? Would not anti-christian atheist work much better? And sound so much better?

They MIGHT be called 'satanists' because the Hebrew word 'satan' merely means 'adversary', or 'one who opposes'.

Thus, a 'satanist' would be one who opposed a thing... and the other poster said that what they 'oppose' is the thing that 'god' stands for.

You didn't answer my question.
I did.


Is my the light in my room on or off? And you may not say that you do not know.
I can say that, because you're not asking THE RIGHT QUESTION!

Sheesh, I swear. Give someone an AOHell account and they think they have a degree in philosophy.

The right question is: Do you have the belief that the light in my room is on.



If you don't know what to believe, then clearly you do not have the believe that there is a god, and clearly then you lack the belief that there is a god, and clearly then you are an atheist.
I lack the belief of a god,
Then you're an atheist. It's just that simple.


I lack the belief there is a god. I also lack the belief there is no god.
That's fine, but you're still an atheist.



It's called logical progression and logical consequences; learn it.
Stop acting so smug. I'm getting tired of it.
I really don't give a damn what you're getting tired of. I'm getting tired of your incessant whining and utter lack of comprehension of so basic an idea as HAVE/NOT HAVE.



Yes, there is: to not believe. When you're born, you don't believe that there is a god, do you?
But you don't believe there is no god either. You don't believe anything.
Yes, and that doesn't make the infant not an atheist.



Yes, they actually do. You either HAVE the belief or you DO NOT HAVE the belief. There is no middle.
Don't have either belief.
Then you DO NOT HAVE the belief. Simple. Why do you not get that mind-bashingly simple idea?



Therefore, you do not have the belief that the light it on, similar to not having the belief that there is a god.
You also do not have the belief that the light is off.

Well, let's say you're right then.
There's no "let's say" about it; I am.


Ok, so you don't have the belief that the light is on, so it's off?
Strawman.



You just proved my point for me. Thank you.
Like I said, stop being smug.
Like I said: stop whining.



No, I happen to know that I'm correct.
Fine, I'll try being childish.
It's childish to know that you're correct when you are? What planet are you from? The planet of the whining gits?



I can't be wrong anymore than I could be wrong in stating 1 = 1. It's simply not possible, given the evidence I've provided.
Well I can't possibly be wrong any more than if I said x=x. It's not possible, therefore I am right and you are wrong. Yay, I win.
*sigh*

You should not be in this thread. You have no idea of what you speak. Why don't you try some teenybopper thread, m'kay? Talk about rap or TV. Don't bother the adults.



What is immature is denying the evidence and screaming at reality that you want reality to go away, leave you alone, and not make you think. Stating that for every yes/no question, you MUST take a position of yes/no, is illogical.
No one is stating that. You're still of the idea that atheism is the denial that there are gods, even after having it explained to you numerous times that it is not.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Don't know/don't care falls into the agnostic section.

There is a God - Theist
There is no God - Atheist
WRONG!

Atheism = I do not believe that there is a god.

How many times must you have it explained to you?

But what if you don't lack a belief in god, what if you take no stance and say we can't know?
That's not possible.


What if you say there could be a god and there could not be a god so I'm not going to make a choice on incomplete evidence?
Then you lack belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Maybe we should just do away with atheist and do Anti -theist and Non Theist (anti being explicit non being implicit)
people cant seemt to grasp the atheist concept

That's why I claim to be a Godless Heathen. :)

That's not possible.
Yes it is. I'm living proof.

Then you lack belief in the existence of a god or gods.

No I don't. I believe we can't know if there is or is not a god so I don't make a choice. How is that the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods?

I'm sorry, you just hit the limit. You are too arrogant and close-minded to waste my time with you.

Yes, *I'm* the whining one. *I'm* the childish one.

Believe what you will.

Yes. You're having a fit that you are an atheist, and that you were incorrect in your definition of atheism.
Stop trying to suggest I'm having a fit.
I'm not suggesting it; I'm stating it.



If you define a car as "an animal with horns and gives milk", and I tell you that you're wrong, are you going to tell me that I'm arrogant for telling you that I know that you're wrong?

Well that's precisely what you're doing to me now.
No, that's precisely what you're doing to ME now. You're saying something like that which I KNOW is wrong.
No, you don't know that it's wrong. You only believe that it is, and I've shown you to be wrong. So have others in this thread.

Now stop being childish, m'kay?



Nothing. What's wrong with you that you are pitching a fit?
No, *you're* pitching a fit.
*sigh*

IKYABWAI is not a valid response.



I can't be, as I have shown.
Neither can I, as I have shown.
You've shown nothing but that you can behave as a 3 year-old.



But you didn't show any errors in my thinking.
You didn't show any errors in my thinking either.
I, and others, have. Now stop being infantile.



Again: anytime you want to show where my error lies in my breakdown of the word "atheism", please feel free. I would welcome it. As it stands, no one has been able to show how one bit of it is wrong.
Of course not. If you ignore the things that you don't like and just start spouting off arguments, without possibly accepting that you might be wrong, you yourself will never be proven wrong.
What a very nice lie and tantrum. Do you need your diaper changed after that fit?

Now then--where is my error in my breakdown of the word "atheism"?

I'm sorry, you just hit the limit. You are too arrogant and close-minded to waste my time with you.
Translation: Defiantland has no idea what it's gotten into, and wants to run away, like Brave Sir Robin.

Agnosticism is technically atheism. Atheism being the lack of belief in a deity. Atheists therefore either are disbelieving in god, by which I mean they actively believe there is no god. Or they do not claim to know whether god exists or not.

So an agnostic is technically an atheist, but agnosticism offers a finer gradation of definition as to exactly what the persons stance on theism is.

Good try, but fatally flawed.

I have friends who are Agnostic Theists. Thus, Agnosticism cannot be Atheism. They believe in god, but they think it impossible to know FOR SURE... they don't believe it can be PROVED.

Translation: Defiantland has no idea what it's gotten into, and wants to run away, like Brave Sir Robin.
Ok while I agree with your position please dont be condecending ... it does not help discussion

Yes it is. I'm living proof.
No, you either believe or you do not. That's reality. You can attempt to fool yourself all you want, but that's all it is: fooling yourself. And you've got it all in the palm of your hand, don't you? You're a travelling man--I can tell. But your hands are wet with sweat, and your head needs a rest, doesn't it?


No I don't. I believe we can't know if there is or is not a god so I don't make a choice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice -- and I will choose freewill.


How is that the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods?
Because if you do not HAVE the belief in the existence of a god or gods, then you LACK that belief. It's very simple. It's like if you do not HAVE shoes, then you LACK them. Very simple.

Get it now?

I'm about as dogmatic of an atheist as they come. You'd be very hard-pressed to find someone more intolerent of religion than me, to quote Mikhail Bakunin: "If a God did exist, it would be necessary to abolish him."

I didn't feel the need to look through all 7 pages to see if somebody already quoted this, so if it is repetitive I apologize.

Anywho, morality is objective, imo. It stems from empathy. What is good for one human (health, happiness, friends, etc.) is good for the rest, and hurting that is immoral.

My two cents.

Ok while I agree with your position please dont be condecending
I wasn't.

No, you either believe or you do not. That's reality. You can attempt to fool yourself all you want, but that's all it is: fooling yourself. And you've got it all in the palm of your hand, don't you? You're a travelling man--I can tell. But your hands are wet with sweat, and your head needs a rest, doesn't it?
Not really. I disagree with this premise. I do not believe that we can know so I don't take a stance.



If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice -- and I will choose freewill.
And what choice would that be? I don't take a stance so what choice have I made?



Because if you do not HAVE the belief in the existence of a god or gods, then you LACK that belief. It's very simple. It's like if you do not HAVE shoes, then you LACK them. Very simple.

Get it now?
But I don't take a stand I reserve my judgement. Its simple really. You seem to be operating under the condition that you can only choose one or the other when really there is the other option of reserving your judgement and not making a choice.

But I don't take a stand I reserve my judgement. Its simple really. You seem to be operating under the condition that you can only choose one or the other when really there is the other option of reserving your judgement and not making a choice.

Much as I believe BAAWA is exercising all the diplomatic grace of a car-wreck, the fact remains that there IS truth to what is being said.

If you 'reserve judgement' on 'god', you are not accepting the concept as 'true' (also - not as 'false').

If you are not accepting the concept as true, you are without theism. Thus, you are a-theist.

Much as I believe BAAWA is exercising all the diplomatic grace of a car-wreck, the fact remains that there IS truth to what is being said.
lol I would agree with you here about BAAWA's grace. He really is very condescending.

If you 'reserve judgement' on 'god', you are not accepting the concept as 'true' (also - not as 'false').

If you are not accepting the concept as true, you are without theism. Thus, you are a-theist.
I disagree with the part bolded part. It not that I am accepting the concept as not true rather I am saying we can not know if the concept is true or false. Because of this I reserve my judgement.

On the third option debate:

Your belief in god is not the same as god. The statement "I believe in god" is entirely unrelated to the statement "there is a god".

Maybe I can rephrase it a bit. Answer the following three questions:

1) Is there a god?

2) Do you believe that there is a god? (Please note that I am asking about your belief. Wether or not it is true is irrelevant)

3) Do you believe that there is no god? (Please note that I am asking about your belief. Wether or not it is true is irrelevant)

Question 1 is irrelevant to this thread.

If answered yes to question 2 you are a theist, if you answered no to question 2 you are an atheist.

If you answered no to question 3 (as well as two) you are agnostic. If you answered yes to question 3 and no to question 2 you are a so called 'strong atheist'. Please don't confuse this with the more general term 'atheist'.

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

BAWA is correct.

Defiantland you're simply an atheist who's being agnostic about it. Unless you catch yourself praying, in which case you're a theist, who's being agnostic about it.

I myself am an atheist, but singe only half the people here seem to know what that means, I'll go with GNI: I'm a godless heathen :p

BAWA is correct.

Defiantland you're simply an atheist who's being agnostic about it. Unless you catch yourself praying, in which case you're a theist, who's being agnostic about it.

I myself am an atheist, but singe only half the people here seem to know what that means, I'll go with GNI: I'm a godless heathen :p

LOL. (Yes, I really did just say 'lol').

We Godless Heathens have to stick together. :D

What I would like to know before voteing is what morality means. Can you for example have a morality that is 100% unrelated to what you think the law should be? 'Cause I have kind of two sets of morality. One that I believe is objective, or at least the same for everyone, and then another one, that is much stricter and certainly subjective.

lol I would agree with you here about BAAWA's grace. He really is very condescending.


It's about the third time I've seen him/her picked up for the same thing this evening, too... bad day, perhaps?


I disagree with the part bolded part. It not that I am accepting the concept as not true rather I am saying we can not know if the concept is true or false. Because of this I reserve my judgement.

I didn't say you accepted it as 'not true'... I said you did not accept it as true.

The two things ARE different... as different as the 'lack of beleif' and 'belief of lack' that separate the Implicit from the Explicit Atheists.

It is as simple as: Do you accept what you are being presented as 'god'? If you are not accepting any version of 'god', regardless of whether you ACTIVELY 'disbelieve'... then you are 'without Theism'.

Reserved judgement is Implicit Atheism.

What I would like to know before voteing is what morality means. Can you for example have a morality that is 100% unrelated to what you think the law should be? 'Cause I have kind of two sets of morality. One that I believe is objective, or at least the same for everyone, and then another one, that is much stricter and certainly subjective.
The question is whether you believe there exists absolute morals, ei that morals are unrelated to human intelligence.

Whatever you believe those morals to be is irrelevant.

So do you think there'd be such a thing as morals without us little humans? If so, then you believe they're objective.

It's about the third time I've seen him/her picked up for the same thing this evening, too... bad day, perhaps?
Who knows. People vent all the time on here.



I didn't say you accepted it as 'not true'... I said you did not accept it as true.

The two things ARE different... as different as the 'lack of beleif' and 'belief of lack' that separate the Implicit from the Explicit Atheists.
You may be losing me here. Your saying its not that I accepted it as not true but I did not accept it as true?

It is as simple as: Do you accept what you are being presented as 'god'? If you are not accepting any version of 'god', regardless of whether you ACTIVELY 'disbelieve'... then you are 'without Theism'.
I take the third option. I say we can not know and I don't make the choice.

The question is whether you believe there exists absolute morals, ei that morals are unrelated to human intelligence.

Whatever you believe those morals to be is irrelevant.

So do you think there'd be such a thing as morals without us little humans? If so, then you believe they're objective.
So if morals come from human nature, then it is subjective?

I take the third option. I say we can not know and I don't make the choice.
This is totally irrelevant. The issue is not wether or not there is a god. The question you need to answer is: Do you believe that there is a god? Your belief, if it exists, is wholly in your mind, and there is no way you can not know about it.

This is totally irrelevant. The issue is not wether or not there is a god. The question you need to answer is: Do you believe that there is a god? Your belief, if it exists, is wholly in your mind, and there is no way you can not know about it.

I say we can't know if there is or is not a god. So I reserve my judgement hence why I am agnostic.

I say we can't know if there is or is not a god. So I reserve my judgement hence why I am agnostic.

Are you also agnostic about whether blue fairies live on mars or whether I am a 20-foot tall gazelle?

The fact is that there is no evidence for the existance of god and thus god does not exist regardless of the fact that, being supernatural, he is impossible to disprove definitively.

As for morality, well it is a human construct and thus entirely subjective.

Are you also agnostic about whether blue fairies live on mars or whether I am a 20-foot tall gazelle?

We are talking about the divine here. Last time I checked wheter or not you are a gazelle has nothing to do with being divine and fairies weren't gods. Nice strawman.

I say we can't know if there is or is not a god. So I reserve my judgement hence why I am agnostic.
I understand that you are agnostic, you don't need to say that more times. However, that does not say anything that is relevant in this thread. If we leave aside the question "Do you believe there is no god", what do you say about "Do you believe there is a god". If you find the distinction confusing, please read my post with three numbered questions in it. If you still don't see what I am on about, please ask.

We are talking about the divine here. Last time I checked wheter or not you are a gazelle has nothing to do with being divine and fairies weren't gods. Nice strawman.

Hardly. What practical difference is there in conceeding that god may exist and that fairies on the moon may exist? We can not disprove them. Both are possible, but both are ridiculous to any logical thinker because they lack any evidence.

And what is this "divine"? Why can't my blue martian fairies be "divine"?

I say we can't know if there is or is not a god. So I reserve my judgement hence why I am agnostic.
You mean:

You're agnostic about whether there is a god or not. Hence why you're an atheist/theist.

Hehehe, the circle of confusion never ends.

So if morals come from human nature, then it is subjective?
Well... Basically yes. But it depends a bit on how you mean that. Me saying that if you believed morals were independent of human beings, was simply an attempt at stating the difference quickly & obviously.

However, assuming you believe morals are connected to humans:
Do you believe that morals depend on the individual human being, or do you believe that there is a universal set of morals that, integral in all humanity?

If you believe the latter, then you believe morals is an objective thing... However, I am not sure the OP agrees with this. I have a strong suspicion the OP assumes objective morals are independent of humanity.

You mean:

You're agnostic about whether there is a god or not. Hence why you're an atheist/theist.

Hehehe, the circle of confusion never ends.

You can say atheist/theist if you want even though its a hell of an oxymoron but I'll stick with just saying its a third option.

You can say atheist/theist if you want even though its a hell of an oxymoron but I'll stick with just saying its a third option.
Oh, I guess I should have said "or" instead of using a slash. I didn't mean to imply you were both.

The third option you discribe...

You seem to believe that isn't either atheism or theism. If you're truely undecided, and not just saying "well I dunno either way based on the evidence" while maintaining belief in the divine, then you are an atheist. Sure, you're agnostic about it, but you're still an atheist.

Correct me if I'm off the mark here, but it seems to me that this whole argument is about defining the concepts of agnosticism and atheism.

Based on the majority of the posts I've come to the conclusion that what's trying to be explained is:

Agnosticism isn't necessarily what you would consider a belief system. It's more an outlook on the question of the existence of God. "Does God exist?" He might, he might not... That's not saying "I believe God exist." or "I don't believe God exist." It's simply stating that you question His existence (or non-existence, whichever the case may be).

Agnosticism seems to be kind of an ambiguous middle ground for some. Choosing to reserve judgment until you either find "proof" enough to believe or enough cause not to believe would be, in my opinion, a valid response; neither atheistic nor theistic.

Atheism on the other hand is a system of belief. "I don't believe in God." would be an atheistic belief. And the opposing belief, "I believe in God." would be not atheistic.

Just an observation...

Correct me if I'm off the mark here, but it seems to me that this whole argument is about defining the concepts of agnosticism and atheism.

Based on the majority of the posts I've come to the conclusion that what's trying to be explained is:

Agnosticism isn't necessarily what you would consider a belief system. It's more an outlook on the question of the existence of God. "Does God exist?" He might, he might not... That's not saying "I believe God exist." or "I don't believe God exist." It's simply stating that you question His existence (or non-existence, whichever the case may be).

Agnosticism seems to be kind of an ambiguous middle ground for some. Choosing to reserve judgment until you either find "proof" enough to believe or enough cause not to believe would be, in my opinion, a valid response; neither atheistic nor theistic.

Atheism on the other hand is a system of belief. "I don't believe in God." would be an atheistic belief. And the opposing belief, "I believe in God." would be not atheistic.

Just an observation...
Atheism isn't a system of belief. It's your personal relationship with divinity. If you don't feel you can form an opinion about divinity, then you are agnostic about it.

If you don't feel you can form an opinion, and thus don't believe in the divine, you're an agnostic atheist.

Ifg you don't feel you can form an opinion about it, but believe in the divine regardless, then you are an agnostic theist.

Most people in europe, for example, are clearly agnostics... Agnostic theists that is. Similarily, most atheists tend to be agnostic atheists.

You all seem very confused about what agnostic means... And you seem to (very wrongly) think atheism is some sort of anti-divinity and/or anti-religion thing. It isn't.

I am not an Atheist at all i think it is crazy.

No, you either believe or you do not. That's reality. You can attempt to fool yourself all you want, but that's all it is: fooling yourself. And you've got it all in the palm of your hand, don't you? You're a travelling man--I can tell. But your hands are wet with sweat, and your head needs a rest, doesn't it?
Not really. I disagree with this premise.
Doesn't matter.


I do not believe that we can know so I don't take a stance.
But you are: your stance is that you do not believe that we can know!

Sheesh.


If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice -- and I will choose freewill.
And what choice would that be?
To not decide.



Because if you do not HAVE the belief in the existence of a god or gods, then you LACK that belief. It's very simple. It's like if you do not HAVE shoes, then you LACK them. Very simple.

Get it now?
But I don't take a stand I reserve my judgement.
But you do. It's simple, really. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that you can "stay out of it" or "stay above it" and not "get your hands dirty". Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in reality.

You either have the belief or you lack it. Demonstrate to me some middle between have and lack, and you will be the FIRST PERSON IN HISTORY to do so.

Much as I believe BAAWA is exercising all the diplomatic grace of a car-wreck,
On the contrary; I'm exercising great diplomacy. It's neither my fault nor my problem that certain people do not acknowledge basic truths, such as there being no middle of have and not have.

Disbelief is to do the opposite of believe.

Statement X.

I believe it means that you believe Statement X is true.
I disbelieve it means that you believe Statement X is false, or you don't believe it is true.
I don't know means that you cannot choose either side, because you have no idea. When you have no idea, you cannot choose to believe or to not believe.

That is what you're forcing on to me. I have no idea whether God exists or not. Yet you are forcing me to either believe in him or not believe in him. I have insufficient reasoning to believe in him, and insufficient reasoning to not believe in him. I don't know!

But fine, if you're forcing me to pick a side... eenie, meenie, miney, moe...



Please don't be condescending. Show some character.


To help abit....

"disbelief" == "refusal of believe"....
"unbelief" == "no or lack of belief"....

disbelief =/= unbelief...

An atheist "disbelieves" (refuses to believe) in one or more G/god(s)...

An agnostic has "unbelief" (that is, lack of belief due to lack of evidence) in one or more G/god(s)

Atheism is a POSTIVE system of belief (that it, it asserts a definite belief in NO GOD, or DISbelief in (a) (G)(g)od(s).

Agnosticism is a NEUTRAL system (that is, it does not express any definite belief)

"What kind of atheist are you?"

The kind that doesn't know which is dumber: believing that the Bible is to be taken word for word literally, or trying to "prove" God doesn't exist! :p

amen to that

This is totally irrelevant. The issue is not wether or not there is a god. The question you need to answer is: Do you believe that there is a god? Your belief, if it exists, is wholly in your mind, and there is no way you can not know about it.

The problem is, his answer to that is "I don't know" and not a "yes" or "no".... The entire planet does not operate in binary.


The fact is that there is no evidence for the existance of god and thus god does not exist regardless of the fact that, being supernatural, he is impossible to disprove definitively.

You're making a NEGATIVE AFFIRMATION (which is still a postive statement regarding), a belief in something.... S/He is making a neutral statement.... "I do not know...", and thus His/Her answer to "Do you believe in one or more God's?" is no (or I don't know); AND His/Her answer to "Do you believe there is no God or Gods?" is also no (or I don't know)....

The options are not binary.

Why is everyone being so absolutist about what is effectively a PHILOSOPHICAL issue.

Like a judge, He/She reserves judgement (has no affirmation towards) any belief (including negative affirmation; i.e. a postive statement of disbelief)... And making futile attempts to box things into neat little compartments, contrary to how things ACTUALLY work; does not help matters... Even in science there is neutrality (just because something lacks a POSITIVE charge; does not mean it is NEGATIVE...)

As an illustration:
Do you believe the walls in my room are white?
Do you disbelieve the walls in my room are white?

As soon as you make a default choice in something... You're making a affirmation of judgement towards that thing (even if its defaulted from lack of knowledge)... RESERVING, however, is not DEFAULTING... RESERVING means you do not make the judgement at all... (no statement of affirmation, postive or negative... I.E. a stance of neutrality).... Thus a statement which will not affirm the judgement, for or against the existance of such a being.

He/She is under no obligation to make such a statement to you, themselves, or any other person... And has full power to reserve such.

The problem is, his answer to that is "I don't know" and not a "yes" or "no".... The entire planet does not operate in binary.
He doesn't know what he himself is thinking? That sounds pretty insane. Or do you also not yet understand that this has got nothing to do with god?

Do you believe the walls in my room are white?
No

Do you believe the walls in my room are not white?
No

Since I have no knowledge about your walls, nor any other basis for belief or any interest in them I do not believe anything about them. Thus I don't believe that they are white. I don't have to see your walls to know that I don't hold any particular belief about them, which is sufficient to answer the questions.

He doesn't know what he himself is thinking? That sounds pretty insane. Or do you also not yet understand that this has got nothing to do with god?


No


No

Since I have no knowledge about your walls, nor any other basis for belief or any interest in them I do not believe anything about them. Thus I don't believe that they are white. I don't have to see your walls to know that I don't hold any particular belief about them, which is sufficient to answer the questions.


Once again, however, you're operating on default supposition.... No one is required to default to an affirmation, or make a supposition. Like the LEGAL difference between rendering a verdict in a case, and dismissing the case... Dissmissal is not the same (for example) as a rendered verdict of "innocence"... Once a verdict is rendered, the case is closed.... And can only be brought up for appeal..... A dismissal, however, stops the proceeding before a verdict, and the case can be reissued at any time...

As opposed to rendering an answer to either question (in direction of belief in the postive or negative); the case is dismissed, leaving NO VERDICT (answer to the question)...

Your answer to "I do not believe..." can be prooved wrong with further evidence.... So could "I do believe..." Not answering, however, is not the same thing... If their answer is "There is not enough information; and thus I do not answer"... Is never wrong, even if further information comes up to proove the issue... THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE... The "judgement" is reserved untill evidence is adequately provided..... Which is not the same as supposing negative automatically when the positive is not prooven. Therein lies a difference between a direct answer, and lack of an answer altogether...

Thus, three possible answers... Do you believe in God?
1. Postive Affirmation of belief: Yes...
2. Negative Affirmation of belief: No...
3. No Affirmation of belief: I do not know what to believe...

You have assumed a negative position, lacking evidence...
He/She assumes no position, lacking evidence...

Assuming nothing, is not the same as defaulting to the negative...

And making the assumption that everyone must make an assumption, is very presumptious of you.

Once again, however, you're operating on default supposition.... No one is required to default to an affirmation, or make a supposition. Like the LEGAL difference between rendering a verdict in a case, and dismissing the case... Dissmissal is not the same (for example) as a rendered verdict of "innocence"... Once a verdict is rendered, the case is closed.... And can only be brought up for appeal..... A dismissal, however, stops the proceeding before a verdict, and the case can be reissued at any time...

As opposed to rendering an answer to either question (in direction of belief in the postive or negative); the case is dismissed, leaving NO VERDICT (answer to the question)...

Your answer to "I do not believe..." can be prooved wrong with further evidence.... So could "I do believe..." Not answering, however, is not the same thing... If their answer is "There is not enough information; and thus I do not answer"... Is never wrong, even if further information comes up to proove the issue... THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE... The "judgement" is reserved untill evidence is adequately provided..... Which is not the same as supposing negative automatically when the positive is not prooven. Therein lies a difference between a direct answer, and lack of an answer altogether...

Thus, three possible answers... Do you believe in God?
1. Postive Affirmation of belief: Yes...
2. Negative Affirmation of belief: No...
3. No Affirmation of belief: I do not know what to believe...

You have assumed a negative position, lacking evidence...
He/She assumes no position, lacking evidence...

Assuming nothing, is not the same as defaulting to the negative...

And making the assumption that everyone must make an assumption, is very presumptious of you.
I have assumed that if you don't believe a particular thing then you lack belief in that particular thing. How presumptous! If that's your whole point it's conceded, and I think you are stupid (and I also feal stupid for wasting time on the debate).

And I am too tired for taking apart your post any more than that, so if you have a point, please state it. Otherwise I'll see myself as being right and you as nitpicking.

I have assumed that if you don't believe a particular thing then you lack belief in that particular thing. How presumptous! If that's your whole point it's conceded, and I think you are stupid (and I also feal stupid for wasting time on the debate).

And I am too tired for taking apart your post any more than that, so if you have a point, please state it. Otherwise I'll see myself as being right and you as nitpicking.

And once again, you hit the brick wall....

If you "lack belief" then you cannot state a "belief".... IOW: "I believe there is no god or gods" == a belief / "I don't believe in the existance of a god or gods" == a belief... "I do not know..." is a statement, disconnected from ANY belief...

Atheists do not "lack belief".... they have one, that belief is "there is no god or gods..."... Realistically, in the absolute neutral sense of it... EA literally has "no belief on the subject" (in its entirety)... which is different than your NEGATIVE AFFIRMATION of belief... Atheism is a belief system.... An agnostic, however, does not necessitate an actual "belief" as it can rely on being completely neutral on the issue... Not given any actual affirmation to the question.... (and is more based upon a Philosophical principle of knowledge on the issue)... Thus why you can have Atheistic Agnostics (Deny God is knowable, and therefore deny the existance as such), Theistic Agnostics (Deny God is knowable, but affirm existance as such...), and neutral Agnostics (who deny God is knowable, but make no rulling on the existance as such)... Thus the difference "disbelief"(opposing), unbelief(neutral), belief(postive)....

Someone does not have to assume defaultation to the negative (EA remains neutral).... As soon as you make a rulling (begin the statement "I do(n't) believe"), on the unknowable, you can no longer claim to lack a belief on that unknowable... Hense why a neutral party will respond with an "I do not know..."... as opposed to an "I do not believe..."

Now, I'm not saying that one defaults without reason... One's belief (or disbelief) can be "reasonable" (based from a logical reason)... But this does not mean EVERYONE automatically defaults to what you may default to when hitting an unknowable.... some people preffer neutrality over negativity, and some shift to the positive...

"Believing" =/= "knowing"; And that appears to be one thing you seem to consistently want to mix... I "know of" George Bush, but I do not "believe" in George Bush... I know of "Socialism" but I do not believe in socialism....

You can't claim someone does not "believe in god" when they equally do not "believe in no god" (Atheism) either... THAT is the difference... The fact is the trust /belief is placed NOWHERE, which is different than placing it on the negative by default... You trust, based on lack of evidence, there is no God.... EA has no "Trust" period on the issue... Hense the difference... And a reason why the extreme neutral agnostics will not side with any and all (x)-theists on the issue of god/s, because from their standpoint all sides are equally presumptious, affirming a status of existance to something which is unknowable.

I'd rather not say as there isn't much proof for either point other than a large force outside our universe that is 3 times everything ever and the universe being suspiciously friendly to life and by some weird coincidence life has been good for the human evolution with us being put to near extinction so we develop imagination as just one piece of evidence

but mind you why would a God create a universe? if he wanted companions he could just make them instead of waiting billions of years

I'd rather not say as there isn't much proof for either point other than a large force outside our universe that is 3 times everything ever and the universe being suspiciously friendly to life and by some weird coincidence life has been good for the human evolution with us being put to near extinction so we develop imagination as just one piece of evidence

but mind you why would a God create a universe? if he wanted companions he could just make them instead of waiting billions of years

"waiting" implies some reliance on "time".... or subjugation to time... If time had no relative meaning, would there even be a "wait"? What is billions of years to the timeless?

What's the point? I lack the belief there is a God. I also lack the belief there is no God.

Do I have a belief that there is a god?

No, I lack the belief that there is a god.

Do I have a belief that there is no god?

No, I lack the belief that there is no god.

I believe nothing. So you are right, but you haven't gotten the whole picture. I lack the belief that there is a god. That is 100% correct, but only half of my beliefs. I also lack the belief that there is no god. That is also 100% correct.
Therefore, there is a third option. You can have one or the other, or neither.

"I lack the belief that there is a god" does not sum up all my beliefs.

I don't see any reason why there should be a god, there is no evidence.

On the other hand, there is no evidence that there isn't a god either.

Strictly I'm agnostic but I call myself atheist because the only way to guarantee being wrong is not to have a view. :)

Doesn't matter.
Wow your rude. I mean jesus not everyone is going to agree with you but you seem to have it in your mind that your right on everything.



But you are: your stance is that you do not believe that we can know!

Sheesh.
I am refering to saying I am not taking a stance in the issue of wheter there is or is not a god. I take the stance that we can not know and don't get involved.







But you do. It's simple, really. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that you can "stay out of it" or "stay above it" and not "get your hands dirty". Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in reality.

You either have the belief or you lack it. Demonstrate to me some middle between have and lack, and you will be the FIRST PERSON IN HISTORY to do so.
You say I have to choose and I say I don't. I have not choose not to choose in the simplest terms. I acknowledge that there could be the possibility of either side but I simply say we can't know. I don't make a choice on the belief or lack of it part. I simply reserve my judgment.

Wow your rude. I mean jesus not everyone is going to agree with you but you seem to have it in your mind that your right on everything.

I am refering to saying I am not taking a stance in the issue of wheter there is or is not a god. I take the stance that we can not know and don't get involved.

You say I have to choose and I say I don't. I have not choose not to choose in the simplest terms. I acknowledge that there could be the possibility of either side but I simply say we can't know. I don't make a choice on the belief or lack of it part. I simply reserve my judgment.

You'll get used to it (I ignored him a few days ago....)

IOW: You "believe" (trust) that you do not know ;) Which is not a directly "-theistic" belief, and rather a "-gnostic" one.

Which I've been trying to explain to these people... Who seem to think they can know other people better than other people themselves do...

*** FYI to all ***
Atheism is inherantly a belief regarding god..... In its case a belief based upon there being no god.... Atheism is a THEOlogy ;) You invoke a theism (belief about god) as soon as you invoke Atheism.... And even "no belief in god" is "a belief about god"... What distinguishes between concepts here, is in regards to this, He/She literally has no belief effectively "about god", the only belief influencing the decision is a "belief" that present evidence does not exist to form an opinion or belief on the matter... Which is what seperate's EA's case from an effectively Atheistic Agnostic.

<snip>
I know I mean I'm sitting here saying I havent made a choice on a belief in or against the existance of god and their saying I have to. Its incredible for people either I believe one thing or the other when I havent even made a choice in the matter. I mean agnosticism is all about not making a choice and reserving judgment because we can't know if there is or is not a god.

To help abit....

"disbelief" == "refusal of believe"....
Or simply to not believe. There is a passive sense.


"unbelief" == "no or lack of belief"....

disbelief =/= unbelief...

An atheist "disbelieves" (refuses to believe) in one or more G/god(s)...
Or lacks belief.


An agnostic has "unbelief" (that is, lack of belief due to lack of evidence) in one or more G/god(s)
No, the agnostic lacks KNOWLEDGE of god, but can either believe or not believe. What do you think the root in there "gnosis" means?


Atheism is a POSTIVE system of belief (that it, it asserts a definite belief in NO GOD, or DISbelief in (a) (G)(g)od(s).
No, it is not a system of belief. It is a lack of belief.

a + theos + ism

lacking/without + god/gods + belief in


Agnosticism is a NEUTRAL system (that is, it does not express any definite belief)
It is properly orthogonal to atheism and theism.

I know I mean I'm sitting here saying I havent made a choice on a belief in or against the existance of god and their saying I have to.
NO WE ARE NOT!

Why do you continue to think that atheism is solely and only the outright denial that there is a god, when you have been shown that it is not?

Atheism is inherantly a belief regarding god.....
No, it's inherently a lack of belief.

Doesn't matter.
Wow your rude.
My rude?

Hint: your <> you're. Learn the difference.


I mean jesus not everyone is going to agree with you but you seem to have it in your mind that your right on everything.
No, I do not. But on this I am correct, as I have shown.



But you are: your stance is that you do not believe that we can know!

Sheesh.
I am refering to saying I am not taking a stance in the issue of wheter there is or is not a god. I take the stance that we can not know and don't get involved.
That's fine. But you're still an atheist.




But you do. It's simple, really. You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that you can "stay out of it" or "stay above it" and not "get your hands dirty". Sorry, but it doesn't work that way in reality.

You either have the belief or you lack it. Demonstrate to me some middle between have and lack, and you will be the FIRST PERSON IN HISTORY to do so.
You say I have to choose
I don't say that; it is there by the fact of your existence and that you are thinking about it. You can choose to put off a final choice until later, but you've still made a choice. You can choose to believe that we can't know, but you've still made a choice.

What's the point? I lack the belief there is a God.
Then you're an atheist. Plain and simple.

There is no third option. What you're saying, in effect, is that there is some position other than having or lacking something, and there isn't. You either have it, or you do not. There is no middle. On/off. That's it. No. Middle.

Then you're an atheist. Plain and simple.

There is no third option. What you're saying, in effect, is that there is some position other than having or lacking something, and there isn't. You either have it, or you do not. There is no middle. On/off. That's it. No. Middle.

What if you believe there is the potential for god/gods, but also believe there is the potential that said god/gods don't exist as well?

Then you're an atheist. Plain and simple.

There is no third option. What you're saying, in effect, is that there is some position other than having or lacking something, and there isn't. You either have it, or you do not. There is no middle. On/off. That's it. No. Middle.

How can I be an atheist when I lack the belief that there is no god?

Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in a god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.

The term “agnostic” does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic.

The agnostic theist believes in the existence of god, but maintains that the nature of god is unknowable. The medieval Jewish philosopher, Maimonides, is an example of this position. He believed in god, but refused to ascribe positive attributes to this god on the basis that these attributes would introduce plurality into the divine nature—a procedure that would, Maimonides believed, lead to polytheism.[12] According to the religious agnostic, we can state that god is, but—due to the unknowable nature of the supernatural—we cannot state what god is.

Like his theistic cousin, the agnostic atheist maintains that any supernatural realm is inherently unknowable by the human mind, but this agnostic suspends his judgment one step further back. For the agnostic atheist, not only is the nature of any supernatural being unknowable, but the existence of any supernatural being is unknowable as well. We cannot have knowledge of the unknowable; therefore, concludes this agnostic, we cannot have knowledge of god’s existence. Because this variety of agnostic does not subscribe to theistic belief, he qualifies as a kind of atheist.

Various defenses have been offered for this position, but it usually stems from a strict empiricism, i.e., the doctrine that man must gain all of his knowledge entirely through sense experience. Since a supernatural being falls beyond the scope of sensory evidence, we can neither assert nor deny the existence of a god; to do either, according to the agnostic atheist, is to transgress the boundaries of human understanding. While this agnostic affirms the theoretical possibility of supernatural existence, he believes that the issue must ultimately remain undecided and uncertain. Thus, for the agnostic atheist, the proper answer to the question, “Does a god exist?” is “I don’t know”—or, more specifically—“I cannot know.”

...

... agnosticism emerges as a third alternative only if atheism is narrowly defined as the denial of theism. We have seen, however, that atheism, in its widest sense, refers basically to the absence of a belief in god and need not entail the denial of god. Any person who does not believe in god, for whatever reason, is without theistic belief and therefore qualifies as an atheist.

While the agnostic of the Huxley variety may refuse to state whether theism is true or false—thus “suspending” his judgment—he does not believe in the existence of a god. (If he did believe, he would be a theist.) Since this agnostic does not accept the existence of a god as true, he is without theistic belief; he is atheistic—and Huxley’s agnosticism emerges as a form of atheism.

Thus, as previously indicated, agnosticism is not an independent position or a middle way between theism and atheism, because it classifies according to different criteria. Theism and atheism separate those who believe in a god from those who do not. Agnosticism separates those who believe that reason cannot penetrate the supernatural realm from those who defend the capability of reason to affirm or deny the truth of theistic belief.

...

Agnosticism is a legitimate philosophical position (although, in my opinion, it is mistaken), but it is not a third alternative or a halfway house between theism and atheism. Instead, it is a variation of either theism or atheism. The self-proclaimed agnostic must still designate whether he does or does not believe in a god—and, in so doing, he commits himself to theism or he commits himself to atheism. But he does commit himself. Agnosticism is not the escape clause that it is commonly thought to be.
From Atheism: The Case Against God

How can I be an atheist when I lack the belief that there is no god?
BECAUSE YOU LACK THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD!

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that atheism IS NOT solely the outright denial that there is a god?

What if you believe there is the potential for god/gods, but also believe there is the potential that said god/gods don't exist as well?
Then you're a wishy-washy coward who wants to hide behind the term "agnostic", but you are a closet atheist.

Then you're a wishy-washy coward who wants to hide behind the term "agnostic", but you are a closet atheist.
wow just wow.

I am unreligious, meaning, i dont associate any of my morals or ideas with any religion. I can never accept 100% of any church's teachings. Especially Christianity. The closest ive come to a religion is Satanism, and if you think thats a religion where you worship the lover of Evil, as portayed by Catholics, then go reasearch it because youre completley wrong.

Anyhow, I chose the "Reject gods due to lack of evidence, morality is subjective". Because, it really is. Saying that morality is objective is like saying that all people like the same foods. Its an incorrect statement, went broken down logically.

Then you're a wishy-washy coward who wants to hide behind the term "agnostic", but you are a closet atheist.

I myself am an agnostic theist, but just wanted to see what my example would be classified as. Please though stop with name calling and such, because it really isn't needed.

Then you're a wishy-washy coward who wants to hide behind the term "agnostic", but you are a closet atheist.Yeah, or, youre a moron. The term is "Agnostic Atheist".

BECAUSE YOU LACK THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS A GOD!

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that atheism IS NOT solely the outright denial that there is a god?Actually, it is. Try thinking before acting for a change, it will really make your life much easier.

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

a·the·ism
n.

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

The second part of that definition is a little biased. At least, the immorality part. Still, I guess it's sometimes a common usage, if an incorrect one.

The second part of that definition is a little biased. At least, the immorality part. Still, I guess it's sometimes a common usage, if an incorrect one.
Yeah, i thought so too...

How can I be an atheist when I lack the belief that there is no god?
Very simple... Because you also lack belief in divinity.

You see, it's like this: either you actually believe in divinity, or you're an atheist.

Sure, you're agnostic about the whole thing, but that doesn't mean you're not an atheist. Consider this: if you're neither for or against the war in Iraq, then you aren't a proponent for the Iraq war. If we used the words theism & atheism about this, then you'd be a theist if you were FOR the war. In all other cases, you'd be an atheist.
If you didn't have an opinion about the matter, because you didn't feel there was enough information to make up your mind, you would be an agnostic atheist.

Atheism is not, I repeat, is not, belief that there is nothing divine. It's lack of belief that there is something divine.

Unless you suffer from MPD, you can only be either a theist or an atheist. But it's perfectly normal to be agnostic about it. I'm sure almost all atheists are, and I know quite a few theists are as well.

BAAWA, you might be right, but mate.. You'll hardly get thru to someone by verbally abusing them.

Actually, it is.
Actually, it isn't. You prove it for me. Watch.


a·the·ism
n.

1. a)Disbelief
Right there. Thank you much.

Yeah, or, youre a moron.
No. He asked for my opinion, and I gave it to him.

Mayhaps you should read the nice passage from Atheism: The Case Against God that I posted.

I myself am an agnostic theist, but just wanted to see what my example would be classified as. Please though stop with name calling and such, because it really isn't needed.
I didn't name-call. You asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you. You didn't say that you believed it--you just asked what I would call it. And I gave you what I would call it.

If you didn't want to know, you shouldn't have asked.

Actually, it isn't. You prove it for me. Watch.



Right there. Thank you much.Do you listen to yourself when you talk?

"How many times are you going to ignore the fact that atheism IS NOT solely the outright denial that there is a god?"

In the definition i supplied, it states that Atheism is the disbelif in Gods, and nothing more. You are contadicting yourself because you arent thinking.

BAAWA, you might be right, but mate.. You'll hardly get thru to someone by verbally abusing them.
I'm not verbally abusing anyone, and I've gone over this with the defiant one many times. He doesn't get it. No matter how many times the definition of atheism has been provided for him, he just doesn't get it.

I didn't name-call. You asked for my opinion, and I gave it to you. You didn't say that you believed it--you just asked what I would call it. And I gave you what I would call it.

If you didn't want to know, you shouldn't have asked.

True, but was the wishy washy coward part really needed instead of just you're an agonostic atheist/just plain atheist.

No. He asked for my opinion, and I gave it to him.

Mayhaps you should read the nice passage from Atheism: The Case Against God that I posted.
Why do you only quote half of what other people say? Doing so makes me think that you are more dogmatic that the catholics. And thats very dogmatic.

Do you listen to yourself when you talk?
Yes, do you?

Disbelief can be passive, grasshopper. It can be "not believing".

Also:

a + theos + ism

lacking/without + god/gods + belief in

Want to find a dictionary to prove me wrong--oh wait, you can't. Because I'm not wrong. I'm using the dictionary definitions!

Why do you only quote half of what other people say?
Maybe the other parts are irrelevant?

I'm not verbally abusing anyone, and I've gone over this with the defiant one many times. He doesn't get it. No matter how many times the definition of atheism has been provided for him, he just doesn't get it.

Stop whining and pitching a tantrum, jeez! (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Your words mean nothing. Why?

Because I could say the same about you. I have explained to you why there is a third option, and no matter how many times I explain it to you, you just don't get it.

True, but was the wishy washy coward part really needed instead of just you're an agonostic atheist/just plain atheist.
You asked for my opinion, did you not? If you did not want to know my opinion, then you should not have asked. It's as simple as that.

Because I could say the same about you.
You could try, but since your "explanation" has been shown to be wrong, you wouldn't have a case.

Look: it's either HAVE or DO NOT HAVE. There is no middle, no matter how much you wish there is a middle.

But, you won't get it. I know that you won't get it. You're stuck in the erroneous belief that atheism is only the outright denial that there is a god, and no amount of reality will budge you from your faith.

Yes, do you?

Disbelief can be passive, grasshopper. It can be "not believing".

Also:

a + theos + ism

lacking/without + god/gods + belief in

Want to find a dictionary to prove me wrong--oh wait, you can't. Because I'm not wrong. I'm using the dictionary definitions!
I suggest you stop speaking to me, as every time youdo, you contradict yourself more and more. YOU stated that atheism is Atheism is NOT just a disbelif in god(s). And now youre saying that it is. And I used a dictionary too, oh mighty one.

You asked for my opinion, did you not? If you did not want to know my opinion, then you should not have asked. It's as simple as that.

Um, he was complaining that you were name-calling, not that you were stating your opinion. You then proceed to refute that you were name calling and verbally abusing others, even though the proof is everywhere on this thread. You may state your opinion, but please do so in a civilized manner.

You could try, but since your "explanation" has been shown to be wrong, you wouldn't have a case.

Look: it's either HAVE or DO NOT HAVE. There is no middle, no matter how much you wish there is a middle.

But, you won't get it. I know that you won't get it. You're stuck in the erroneous belief that atheism is only the outright denial that there is a god, and no amount of reality will budge you from your faith.
You really are more dogmatic than that Cathloics. Agnostic Atheism is a very valid belif, so get over it.

I suggest you stop speaking to me,
I suggest that you get a grip.


as every time youdo, you contradict yourself more and more.
Prove it.


YOU stated that atheism is Atheism is NOT just a disbelif in god(s).
No, I said that atheism is not just an outright DENIAL that there is a god. Disbelief can be passive, little one. It can be a simple non-belief. A simple "not believing"

a + theos + ism

lacking/without + god/gods + belief in.

You really are more dogmatic than that Cathloics.
You really need a spell-checker.


Agnostic Atheism is a very valid belif, so get over it.
No, it's really not. It attacks the human ability to know things.

Likewise, the agnostic atheist encounters opposition from other atheists who refuse to acknowledge the theoretical possibility of supernatural existence, or who argue that reason can effectively show theism to be false or nonsensical.

Um, he was complaining that you were name-calling,
And I wasn't name-calling; I was stating my opinion.

You can post in this threat, kiddo, but you'll have to stop ignoring the fact that atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or god, and not simply the outright denial that there is a god.

"No, I said that atheism is not just an outright DENIAL that there is a god. Disbelief can be passive, little one. It can be a simple non-belief. A simple 'not believing'"

I gave a definition from a website. I posted the link to this website. This website states that Atheism can be both denying or disbeliving in a god or gods. Pay attention when others talk to you. And also, your argument isnt valid at all. Nor is it very convincing. Explain yourself fully and offer better examples other than your own way of thinking.

1. I apologize for my typos

2. "Originally Posted by George H. Smith
Likewise, the agnostic atheist encounters opposition from other atheists who refuse to acknowledge the theoretical possibility of supernatural existence, or who argue that reason can effectively show theism to be false or nonsensical." <-- What are you saying here, as i dont understand the meaning of this passage or why it was put in that post.

No, I said that atheism is not just an outright DENIAL that there is a god. Disbelief can be passive, little one. It can be a simple non-belief. A simple 'not believing'
I gave a definition from a website.
And?


I posted the link to this website. This website states that Atheism can be both denying or disbeliving in a god or gods.
Yes, and?

I'm waiting for a point. Please get to one soon. If your point was to prove that I'm correct, then you did so in a most odd, but somewhat admirable manner.

And I wasn't name-calling; I was stating my opinion.

You can post in this threat, kiddo, but you'll have to stop ignoring the fact that atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or god, and not simply the outright denial that there is a god. And why do you tell me i need a spell checker?

Yes, and?

I'm waiting for a point. Please get to one soon. If your point was to prove that I'm correct, then you did so in a most odd, but somewhat admirable manner.
What are you talking about? Your arguments are killing me, as they lack any sense at all.

Likewise, the agnostic atheist encounters opposition from other atheists who refuse to acknowledge the theoretical possibility of supernatural existence, or who argue that reason can effectively show theism to be false or nonsensical.
<-- What are you saying here, as i dont understand the meaning of this passage or why it was put in that post.
It was put into the post to show why many atheists think that "agnostic atheists" are silly.

Look, any god worth its salt is supernatural (anything natural that is claimed to be a god is utter anthropomorphism, and, as such, can be rejected). Positing the supernatural without some sort of evidence for it is rather silly, and leads one to reject its existence on the fact that it's an unsupported assertion. Yet the agnostic atheist admits into evidence the "supernatural", and that is unwarranted.

Does that help you?

What are you talking about? Your arguments are killing me, as they lack any sense at all.
Pot. Kettle. Black.

My point is that since I'm stating that atheism is both the lack of belief and a denial (which is what the "not just denial") part indicates, and the dictionary says that it's both lack of belief and a denial, and you quoted the dictionary, then you proved that I'm correct.

It was put into the post to show why many atheists think that "agnostic atheists" are silly.

Look, any god worth its salt is supernatural (anything natural that is claimed to be a god is utter anthropomorphism, and, as such, can be rejected). Positing the supernatural without some sort of evidence for it is rather silly, and leads one to reject its existence on the fact that it's an unsupported assertion. Yet the agnostic atheist admits into evidence the "supernatural", and that is unwarranted.

Does that help you?
An Agnostic Athiest is someone who finds no evidence of a god or anything supernatural, and is skeptical about that belif.

I'm not sure about the objective/subjective thing... but I certainly do not believe in a "god" or "gods". In my opinion, religion should be banned.
Now when I say religion, I mean organized religion, not individual beliefs.

I'm not sure about the objective/subjective thing... but I certainly do not believe in a "god" or "gods". In my opinion, religion should be banned.
Now when I say religion, I mean organized religion, not individual beliefs.
I dont belive it should be BANNED, as i like the idea of freedom, but i agree that organized religions are stupid, as they arre simply extentions of your own morals.

And about the objective/subjective: when something is subjective, it varies from person to person, objective is when everyone feels the same way.

My point is that since I'm stating that atheism is both the lack of belief and a denial (which is what the "not just denial") part indicates, and the dictionary says that it's both lack of belief and a denial, and you quoted the dictionary, then you proved that I'm correct.
So then by your defenition if an agnostic does not deny the existance of a god but also does not deny the possibility that there could be a god what would they be?

An Agnostic Athiest is someone who finds no evidence of a god or anything supernatural, and is skeptical about that belif.
An agnostic atheist is someone who lacks the belief that there is a god, and either believes that we cannot know anything about god, or that we currently don't know anything about god, and doesn't believe for that reason.

I dont belive it should be BANNED, as i like the idea of freedom, but i agree that organized religions are stupid, as they arre simply extentions of your own morals.

And about the objective/subjective: when something is subjective, it varies from person to person, objective is when everyone feels the same way.

Ok, destroyed then... vanquished, torn down, blown apart, removed from the material plane.

Then I would have to say subjective, using your definition.

So then by your defenition if an agnostic does not deny the existance of a god but also does not deny the possibility that there could be a god what would they be?
Stupid.

Hey--you wanted my opinion.

Seriously, the person would be an atheist.

An agnostic atheist is someone who lacks the belief that there is a god, and either believes that we cannot know anything about god, or that we currently don't know anything about god, and doesn't believe for that reason.
Right, and nothing supernatural, so whoever is stating that they try to give evidence of the supernatural is an idiot. So stop quoting them.

Stupid.

Hey--you wanted my opinion.

Seriously, the person would be an atheist.
He asked you for what religion they would be, not if you found it stupid or not.

Stupid.

Hey--you wanted my opinion.

Seriously, the person would be an atheist.

How so? According to your own defenition they would not fit the criteria for a atheist.

And I wasn't name-calling; I was stating my opinion.

You WERE name calling.

And if you don't want me to be "condescending", then please don't act like a git.
I didn't realize how infantile you are.
and that doesn't make the infant not an atheist.
You've shown nothing but that you can behave as a 3 year-old.
Now stop being infantile.
Then you're a wishy-washy coward

Examples of you being condescending:
Don't bother the adults
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Do you need your diaper changed after that fit?

And this is just the examples where you directly name-called, and directly was condescending not to mention the plenty of other times you verbally assaulted me and many others, with crap like I'm whining or throwing a fit, or implied various things.

Yet you explicitly state that you're NOT name-calling and that you're NOT being condescending.

Some people believe their stance about God as avidly as you believe there is no third option. Are they right, then, to start name-calling and being condescending to others because they believe so avidly that they are right about their stance on God? No, because that would bigotry.

I haven't done this because I thought we could carry a civilized debate. But you can't. Not to mention your bigotry and dogmatism, you have explicitly name-called me and others. The rules of a debate are that when you start verbally abusing others, you lose the debate.

Well, I've had enough, and I'm calling you on it. You lose.

Then you're a wishy-washy coward who wants to hide behind the term "agnostic", but you are a closet atheist.

Your "I'm right and you're wrong" tactics in this thread are borderline trolling/baiting. You have the right to believe what you want, and everyone else has the right to believe what they want, but you telling them outright that they are wrong, and that they're cowards (which you had done earlier in the thread as well; I know, I read the entire debate up to this post). The whole point of a debate is informing the other person of your beliefs while debating theirs respectfully, as to convince them of your validity. From what I can see, your response to people's opinions has been "You're wrong, I'm right, you can apologize to me later." So either you change the way you debate, or you'll be creating a lot of enemies here, and you'll be getting dangerously close to outright trolling. I strongly suggest you take my advice.

~Euroslavia the Forum Moderator

Your "I'm right and you're wrong" tactics in this thread are borderline trolling/baiting.
With all due respect, I am correct. I've shown it. It's neither trolling nor baiting.

If you want to take action against me--fine. That's your prerogative.

I'll leave it at that.

You WERE name calling.
No, I was not. The context was in regards to a specific question, and in that context, I wasn't name-calling.

Now then, if you want to have a debate, you should be prepared. You're not, though. You've stuck to some belief in the face of evidence against, and that's just not the way to go about reality.

You are whining that all I do is say "you're wrong and I'm right", when in fact it is you who are saying that very thing. I've actually demonstrated why I'm correct. You, OTOH, have not done the same for your stance, and you've just ignored all demonstrations showing that you are in error. Frankly, that's not the way to have any sort of discussion or debate, and I makes people question your intellectual acumen and emotional state.

Right, and nothing supernatural, so whoever is stating that they try to give evidence of the supernatural is an idiot. So stop quoting them.
I didn't quote "them".

Honestly, your sentences didn't parse well. Do you think you could rephrase them?

I will believe in God if scientific evidence proves the existence of one, but it looks like there's no chance of that happening anytime soon.

I don't believe in a God per se, or at least a conscious being in the traditional sense. However, I do believe that there is some kind of universal force, neither good nor bad -- or bringing both, as all things seem to do -- of tremendous power, that seems to govern everything. Humans are incapable of feeling the full extent of this and only a small part of that Force manifests itself in them. This may be hyperconscious, or multiconscious, or whatever. And it may or may not have caused the creation of life. But I'm fairly sure it exists, and is probably impossible to prove or disprove the existence of.

He asked you for what religion they would be,
No, he asked "what would they be". And, if you understand humor, you'd know that doing a bit of Marx Brothers is funny.

Example:

Groucho: I danced before Napoleon. No--he danced before me. In fact, he danced 200 years before me.

The idea is to use a word in different ways and not acknowledge the change. In debate, this is called equivocation. However, when used as humor, it is quite funny.

I will believe in God if scientific evidence proves the existence of one, but it looks like there's no chance of that happening anytime soon.

I don't believe in a God per se, or at least a conscious being in the traditional sense. However, I do believe that there is some kind of universal force, neither good nor bad -- or bringing both, as all things seem to do -- of tremendous power, that seems to govern everything. Humans are incapable of feeling the full extent of this and only a small part of that Force manifests itself in them. This may be hyperconscious, or multiconscious, or whatever. And it may or may not have caused the creation of life. But I'm fairly sure it exists, and is probably impossible to prove or disprove the existence of.
Intresing. What i want to know is why Science thinks so highly of humans for making it to the top of the food chain and such, but every spiritual theorizer says that we are inferior to everything else...

I just want to throw this out there, now as it's been presented there are two choices inregards to belief in this, theism or atheism and these are the only two choices. It has been presented that there is potentially a third category in withholding that choice. But this assumes that a choice will be made eventually, so even if there is a third grouping it would be a temperary one until a decision is reached putting you into one of those categories. Wouldn't that make it more of a sub category then instead of a third one all together then?

How so? According to your own defenition they would not fit the criteria for a atheist.
Yes, they would. The person currently does not have the belief that there is a god. Therefore, the person is an atheist.

No, he asked "what would they be". And, if you understand humor, you'd know that doing a bit of Marx Brothers is funny.

Example:

Groucho: I danced before Napoleon. No--he danced before me. In fact, he danced 200 years before me.

The idea is to use a word in different ways and not acknowledge the change. In debate, this is called equivocation. However, when used as humor, it is quite funny.
What is the point of humor in an argument except to distract your audience from the real issue at hand?

I just want to throw this out there, now as it's been presented there are two choices inregards to belief in this, theism or atheism and these are the only two choices. It has been presented that there is potentially a third category in withholding that choice. But this assumes that a choice will be made eventually, so even if there is a third grouping it would be a temperary one until a decision is reached putting you into one of those categories. Wouldn't that make it more of a sub category then instead of a third one all together then?
That's what the idea of agnosticism being orthogonal to atheism and theism is, for the most part. And that's what many here have been saying all along.

What is the point of humor in an argument except to distract your audience from the real issue at hand?
To be funny, what else?

I just want to throw this out there, now as it's been presented there are two choices inregards to belief in this, theism or atheism and these are the only two choices. It has been presented that there is potentially a third category in withholding that choice. But this assumes that a choice will be made eventually, so even if there is a third grouping it would be a temperary one until a decision is reached putting you into one of those categories. Wouldn't that make it more of a sub category then instead of a third one all together then?
True, however, when organizing people by sexuality, Bisexualty isnt considered a sub-group. So, When organizing people Spiritually, it shouldnt differ.

To be funny, what else?
I just stated what else: To distract your audience fomr the issue at hand.

No, I was not.

The proof is right in that post. You cannot claim you were not name-calling when I have explicit proof of exactly the things you said.

The context was in regards to a specific question, and in that context, I wasn't name-calling.

You're a fucking idiot. What, I'm not name-calling, it's in context. :rolleyes: (and no, I don't actually mean that)

Regardless of what you said, you name-called no matter what the context. We were debating and you started calling me names unnecessarily.

Now then, if you want to have a debate, you should be prepared. You're not, though. You've stuck to some belief in the face of evidence against, and that's just not the way to go about reality.

You're the one who cannot accept the possibility of being mistaken or wrong. How am I supposed to debate with that?

You are whining that all I do is say "you're wrong and I'm right", when in fact it is you who are saying that very thing. I've actually demonstrated why I'm correct. You, OTOH, have not done the same for your stance, and you've just ignored all demonstrations showing that you are in error.

I have proved many fallacies in your thinking. Similarly, you combated those fallacies and we continued to argue. That is debate.

However, you started being condescending, name-calling, and overall childish (refusing to acknowledge the possibility that you might be wrong), so I got fed up and didn't bother to continue the debate.

You cannot say I ignored all your demonstrations, as I clearly refuted them. However, you can't possibly be wrong, which is why I won't waste my breath anymore.

[qupte]Frankly, that's not the way to have any sort of discussion or debate, and I makes people question your intellectual acumen and emotional state.[/QUOTE]

First of all, how can you say anything about my emotional state? You have no idea whether I'm fuming at your comments or am simply calmly debating with you. It is inaccurate of you to assume I am in an emotional state (such as tantrum) when you can't possibly know what's behind my screen.

Second, read the moderator's comments and then we'll talk about whose intellectual integrity and emotional state people are questioning.

True, however, when organizing people by sexuality, Bisexualty isnt considered a sub-group. So, When organizing people Spiritually, it shouldnt differ.
Ummmm....no. The two are quite different. One can legitmately be attracted to both sexes. However, wrt belief in something, you either believe, or you do not.

Not one of the religious agnostics here have been able to show a middle between having and lacking a belief.

Please, I do not want to be drawn into a long winded debate or argument, but BAWAA, If one person you are having an argument with calls you infantile then maybe it is just that person being angry. If two people call you on it, then there is a very good chance that it is true. But three? That is definite.

Once is happenstance
Twice is chance
Thrice is a pattern


Also, no one should ever think that they are so correct that they can not be proven wrong. It doesnt matter if you think that the world is flat, the sun orbits around the earth, or 1+1=2; chances are that as our knowledge of the universe grows someone will prove you wrong. (I'm not saying that god exists)
No doubt, "someone" will respond to this by insulting me, but before you do, I'm not saying that i am abseloutely right

Not one of the religious agnostics here have been able to show a middle between having and lacking a belief.
So what does choosing neither belief fall under?

Ummmm....no. The two are quite different. One can legitmately be attracted to both sexes. However, wrt belief in something, you either believe, or you do not.

Not one of the religious agnostics here have been able to show a middle between having and lacking a belief.
No matter how different the two things are, spirituality and sexuality, the options should be portrayed in the same way. Also, [this isnt meant to offend you in any way] who are you to say that people cant be inbetwen two religions?

/me thinks it would be supremely arrogant to believe God does not exist, and delusional to believe He does exist.

An assumption that a God of any "kind" would be explicable within the bounds of human reason and perception is nothing more than ridiculous.

Science/Reason is no more or less a belief system than Orthodox Ch.

When a temporal facet of a religion is "disproved" religion is ridiculed, when a scientific doctrine is disproved.....

I'm me, worship nothing, pc is my temple. Semantically classify as you will ;-)

No, I was not.
The proof is right in that post. You cannot claim you were not name-calling when I have explicit proof of exactly the things you said.
I can, because you were quoting apart from the context, and you even quoted something ("that doesn't make the infant not an atheist") that is a statement of fact and could never be construed as name-calling!



The context was in regards to a specific question, and in that context, I wasn't name-calling.
You're a fucking idiot. What, I'm not name-calling, it's in context. (and no, I don't actually mean that)
My opinion was sought. I didn't call anyone a name.

I never called you any names unnecessarily, either.



Now then, if you want to have a debate, you should be prepared. You're not, though. You've stuck to some belief in the face of evidence against, and that's just not the way to go about reality.
You're the one who cannot accept the possibility of being mistaken or wrong.
Should I accept that I might be mistaken that 2 + 2 = 4? Should I accept that I might be mistaken that humans require oxygen and water in order to live?

Doubt must arise contextually, and there is absolutely no reason to doubt what I have stated, given the evidence I've provided. So why should I accept the possibility that I'm wrong when there's absolutely no reason for me to do so?



You are whining that all I do is say "you're wrong and I'm right", when in fact it is you who are saying that very thing. I've actually demonstrated why I'm correct. You, OTOH, have not done the same for your stance, and you've just ignored all demonstrations showing that you are in error.
I have proved many fallacies in your thinking.
Erm....no, you have not. You've simply misunderstood what I said, or ignored what I said.


You cannot say I ignored all your demonstrations,
I certainly can, since you did.


as I clearly refuted them.
How did you do that? Did you shown that the privative prefix "a" means something other than "lacking or without"? Did you show that "theos" means something other than "god or gods"? Did you show that the suffix "ism" means something other than "belief in/doctrine"? Did you show that agnosticism relates to the belief in the existence of something, rather than knowledge of something as its root "gnosis" would indicate?

If you didn't do any/all of those things, then you didn't refute my position. End of story.


Frankly, that's not the way to have any sort of discussion or debate, and I makes people question your intellectual acumen and emotional state.
First of all, how can you say anything about my emotional state?
With words.


You have no idea whether I'm fuming at your comments or am simply calmly debating with you. It is inaccurate of you to assume I am in an emotional state (such as tantrum) when you can't possibly know what's behind my screen.
Just as inaccurate for you to say that I was having a fit, right?

Oooooo....didn't see that one coming, did you?


Second, read the moderator's comments
I did.


and then we'll talk about whose intellectual integrity and emotional state people are questioning.
Yours.

<Snip>

Because I could say the same about you. I have explained to you why there is a third option, and no matter how many times I explain it to you, you just don't get it.
Defiantland, you should at least concede that this "third option" only exists in your mind.

I think we all realize by now, that you simply cannot bear being called an atheist for some reason.. But it doesn't mean you aren't one, objectively speaking.

Looking over your posts, it strikes me you might as well me a male, who simply cannot accept being called a human, because not all humans are male.

Do you believe in god(s)? No? Then you are an atheist. Whatever else you believe, or don't believe, makes no difference. You'll remain an atheist untill you start actively believing in divinity - in which case you'll become a theist.

Or can you perhaps provide evidence that the definition of atheism suddenly changed to a belief that there isn't anything divine, over the past week?

Most Buddhists are atheists as well. The majority of them most likely share your point of veiw 100%.

With all due respect, I am correct. I've shown it. It's neither trolling nor baiting.

If you want to take action against me--fine. That's your prerogative.

I'll leave it at that.

With all due respect, saying that you're right 100% of the time is trolling/baiting. It eliminates the entire purpose of debating. Either you respect the people you are debating with, as well as not telling them that they are wrong no matter what, just because they disagree with you, or you don't post at all because if you continue on using these tactics, you will be seeing more strict punishments in the future.

You've proven that you need to attack people who believe differently than you, by all of the quotes in this post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9758427&postcount=196 so knock it off.

No matter how different the two things are, spirituality and sexuality, the options should be portrayed in the same way.
The options aren't the same, though.

Look, what you're telling me is that I have to treat the choices for position of a light switch the same as choices for pizza toppings. Given that there are numerous ways to top a pizza, but only 2 positions for a light switch.....


Also, [this isnt meant to offend you in any way] who are you to say that people cant be inbetwen two religions?
I don't say that, though. But that doesn't mean the person isn't either an atheist or a theist.

As for BAAWA, you strike me as being a 15 yr old in love with his own mind.

;-)

<Snip>

I'm me, worship nothing, pc is my temple. Semantically classify as you will ;-)
Sure thing. You're an agnostic atheist. Just like Defiantland.

With all due respect, saying that you're right 100% of the time is trolling/baiting.
With due respect I NEVER STATED THAT I WAS RIGHT 100% OF THE TIME. The defiant one made that up.

So if you're going to take action against me, take action against me for something I did, not for something someone made up about me, ok?

So what does choosing neither belief fall under?
ATHEISM IS NOT STRICTLY A BELIEF! It is a lack of belief.

Sheesh, you've had that explained to you numerous times, just like the defiant one has.

If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. If you are not an atheist, then you are a theist. Those are your only options. That's it. No others. If you do not choose to believe that there is a god, that makes you an atheist. How many more times do you want me to say the same thing over and over?

The options aren't the same, though.

Look, what you're telling me is that I have to treat the choices for position of a light switch the same as choices for pizza toppings. Given that there are numerous ways to top a pizza, but only 2 positions for a light switch.....
You said that you either belive in a god or you dont, so i dont know where youre geting numerous options from.

Also, no one should ever think that they are so correct that they can not be proven wrong. It doesnt matter if you think that the world is flat, the sun orbits around the earth, or 1+1=2; chances are that as our knowledge of the universe grows someone will prove you wrong.
The first two obviously can be shown to be erroneous. In normal arithmetic, no one can ever show that 1 + 1 will ever be anything other than 2. That's just math. It's not arrogance. It's not being infantile. It's math. That's the way additive arithmetic works.

It's like someone telling me that I'm arrogant to believe that I'm a male, and that it could be proven that I'm a female. Given that I was born with and have a penis, testicles, and I have a Y chromosome, it seems pretty blatantly and utterly stupid of someone to say to me that I could be wrong that I'm a male.

Wouldn't you agree?

ATHEISM IS NOT STRICTLY A BELIEF! It is a lack of belief.

Sheesh, you've had that explained to you numerous times, just like the defiant one has.

If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. If you are not an atheist, then you are a theist. Those are your only options. That's it. No others. If you do not choose to believe that there is a god, that makes you an atheist. How many more times do you want me to say the same thing over and over?
He seems to be stating that he doesnt belive in a god and he doesnt not belive in a god, so i dont see how he can be Atheist.

ATHEISM IS NOT STRICTLY A BELIEF! It is a lack of belief.

Sheesh, you've had that explained to you numerous times, just like the defiant one has.

If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. If you are not an atheist, then you are a theist. Those are your only options. That's it. No others. If you do not choose to believe that there is a god, that makes you an atheist. How many more times do you want me to say the same thing over and over?

But what if you acknowledge the possibility for both while choosing neither?

You said that you either belive in a god or you dont, so i dont know where youre geting numerous options from.
You're the one telling me that we should treat "spirituality" options the same as "sexuality". I'm just showing you where that leads.

But what if you acknowledge the possibility for both while choosing neither?
Oh for the love of "BOB"!

Are you purposefully being dense?

ATHEISM IS NOT STRICTLY A BELIEF! It is a lack of belief.

Sheesh, you've had that explained to you numerous times, just like the defiant one has.

If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist. If you are not an atheist, then you are a theist. Those are your only options. That's it. No others. If you do not choose to believe that there is a god, that makes you an atheist. How many more times do you want me to say the same thing over and over?
Wrong. Deists are not Theists. They are not Atheist. They are Deists.

I believe there is no god(s).

Hmm... Let's take a look at that again:

I believe there is no god(s).

I think that my belief there is no god(s) is a belief in itself.

With due respect I NEVER STATED THAT I WAS RIGHT 100% OF THE TIME. The defiant one made that up.

So if you're going to take action against me, take action against me for something I did, not for something someone made up about me, ok?

I'm talking specifically about this thread, where different people have stated their opinions, and you have told them that they are outright wrong for believing what they stated.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9753289&postcount=35
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9753307&postcount=43

So either take my advice, as a moderator of this forum, or don't, and risk the consequences. It's that simple.

Oh for the love of "BOB"!

Are you purposefully being dense?

Nice Ad Hominem instead of answering the question.

He seems to be stating that he doesnt belive in a god and he doesnt not belive in a god, so i dont see how he can be Atheist.
Because he doesn't believe that there is a god. He stating that he doesn't believe that there is a god, but he doesn't outright dismiss the idea of god. This would make him an atheist. A passive/weak atheist, to be sure (and that's not name-calling; those are proper terms, o defiant one), but an atheist nonetheless.

Nice Ad Hominem instead of answering the question.
I have. Many times. Many many many times. How many more times must I answer it for you? How many roads must a man walk down?

Because he doesn't believe that there is a god. He stating that he doesn't believe that there is a god, but he doesn't outright dismiss the idea of god. This would make him an atheist. A passive/weak atheist, to be sure (and that's not name-calling; those are proper terms, o defiant one), but an atheist nonetheless.
I never said I don't believe in a god, I'm saying we can't know if there is or is not so I am withholding my judgment.

You're the one telling me that we should treat "spirituality" options the same as "sexuality". I'm just showing you where that leads.
Then allow me to ammend: Spirituality in relationship to this conversation. [agnostic vs. atheist, as opposed to all world religions vs. all other world religions]

I'm talking specifically about this thread, where different people have stated their opinions, and you have told them that they are outright wrong for believing what they stated.
So if I told you that 1 + 1 = 5, and that I wholeheartedly believed it, would you tell me that I'm wrong for believing it?

That's what I'm getting at. Those people basically told me that 1 + 1 = 5. Is it wrong of me to tell them that they're wrong?

Because he doesn't believe that there is a god. He stating that he doesn't believe that there is a god, but he doesn't outright dismiss the idea of god. This would make him an atheist. A passive/weak atheist, to be sure (and that's not name-calling; those are proper terms, o defiant one), but an atheist nonetheless.
By your definition, a passive atheist would be the same as an agnostic atheist.

I'd disagree with your classification, or rather with the fact that there was an assumption made that..


Atheism is contrary to belief in God, in opposition to. Light/Dark.
Belief is a greyscale.

I happen to believe there probably is a God, but that It's existence being grasped in any meaningful way is impossible for a mere human.

Agnostic atheism would be a phrase inflicted on the world by the dogmatic, that there is no greyscale: Life is nothing but greyscale, there is no Light, no Dark. No untainted Anchovy, no Platonic Tomato.

The term atheism is often used (as in this thread) as if your belief somehow defined God. God, were It to be supremely objective, would be independent of belief. I say this, and am at a loss to explain....

Atheism is a belief that there is no God, Theism, a belief that there is a God, Agnosticism that one is incapable of holding a reasonable belief in such a thing.. Agnosticism is a view on the nature of belief, not on God.

So my declaring that I do not have the capacity to define God in noway makes me Atheistic.

I never said I don't believe in a god, I'm saying we can't know if there is or is not so I am withholding my judgment.
Thus, you don't (believe in the existence of a god or gods). Thus you are an atheist. Which I've stated. About 15 times already. And you've denied that I've stated it.

So if I told you that 1 + 1 = 5, and that I wholeheartedly believed it, would you tell me that I'm wrong for believing it?

That's what I'm getting at. Those people basically told me that 1 + 1 = 5. Is it wrong of me to tell them that they're wrong?
Math cannot be comapred to spirituality at all. This is because math is concrete and solid, while spirituality cannot be proven [Objective vs subjective]. They are exact opposites.

Then allow me to ammend: Spirituality in relationship to this conversation. [agnostic vs. atheist, as opposed to all world religions vs. all other world religions]
There is no "agnostic vs atheist", though. One is about knowledge of something (aGNOStic). The other is about the belief in the existence of something. I've explained this numerous times already.

I never said I don't believe in a god, I'm saying we can't know if there is or is not so I am withholding my judgment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnostic

You are agnostic. You are definetly not Atheist.

Thus, you don't (believe in the existence of a god or gods). Thus you are an atheist. Which I've stated. About 15 times already. And you've denied that I've stated it.

How does not making a choice equal non belief?

There is no "agnostic vs atheist", though. One is about knowledge of something (aGNOStic). The other is about the belief in the existence of something. I've explained this numerous times already.
If this argument isnt considered agnostic vs. atheist, than what is it?

So if I told you that 1 + 1 = 5, and that I wholeheartedly believed it, would you tell me that I'm wrong for believing it?

That's what I'm getting at. Those people basically told me that 1 + 1 = 5. Is it wrong of me to tell them that they're wrong?

That is utterly irrelevant. You're basically telling someone what they believe, when it's obvious that it isn't the case, as well as dropping insults in a few of your posts. Accept that someone doesn't agree with you and move on.

Math cannot be comapred to spirituality at all.
Ummmmm.....why not?


This is because math is concrete and solid, while spirituality cannot be proven [Objective vs subjective]. They are exact opposites.
Ok....find me one. G'won--find me one.

No, not one of something. One.

Ok, so you can't find me one. Can you find me two?

No, not two of something. Two.

Can't do that either, can you?

Math is not concrete and solid. Math is high-level conceptual. The only way that humans really relate to math is with some quasi-Platonic language (i.e. somewhat treating it as a Form).

Ummmmm.....why not?



Ok....find me one. G'won--find me one.

No, not one of something. One.

Ok, so you can't find me one. Can you find me two?

No, not two of something. Two.

Can't do that either, can you?

Math is not concrete and solid. Math is high-level conceptual. The only way that humans really relate to math is with some quasi-Platonic language (i.e. somewhat treating it as a Form).If humans cant even comapre to math, then why are you comparing it to spirituality?

Also, if you can prove or disprove the existence of a God, i think we would all like to see that, since you obviously think that spirituality is Objective and can be proven.

That is utterly irrelevant.
No, it's quite relevant, actually, because that's precisely what I've been doing.

I would really like an answer to my question: would you tell me that I'm wrong for believing that 1 + 1 = 5?

Look, I know the question traps you. If you say yes, then it blows your "case" against me out of the water. If you say no, then you look silly in the face of the fact that 1 + 1 = 2.

I asked the question precisely because I knew it would trap you, and the only way out is to ignore the question.


You're basically telling someone what they believe,
No, I'm telling them that they are mistaken if they believe it. Just as I (and, I would hope, you) would tell someone that s/he is mistaken for believing that 1 + 1 = 5.


when it's obvious that it isn't the case, as well as dropping insults in a few of your posts. Accept that someone doesn't agree with you and move on.
I accept it just fine. But when someone tells me that a turd sandwich is fillet mignon, and keeps telling me that over and over, I'm going to tell that person that s/he is mistaken. If that means you have to take "moderator action"--so be it.