NationStates Jolt Archive

But I'm getting off-topic.

When they told me about Santa, I was shaken, but kept on going.

But when I found out about the Tooth Fairy, I just stopped believing in all supernatural stuff.

Alas, recently I have found a dragon in my garage, and nobody has been able to prove it isn't there.

You can disprove it yourself by doing scientific tests on said beast. And no, saying you're affraid it'll burn your hair of isn't a valid excuse not to do said tests :p

Atheism is not just the position that God doesn't exist, it's a whole way of thinking about the enigmatic behaviours of the universe. Atheism arises from the position that nothing is to be believed unless it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that it is true. When an atheist looks at anything and asks 'why', they don't start jumping to conclusions. They attempt to provide a simple and probable explaination. Atheism isn't some speculatory belief system, it's logic. Pure reasoning. Since the only way to objectively attack something is to use reasoning, and attacking reasoning with reasoning is paradoxical, atheism can't be attacked.

As an apologist would argue the question:

If there is no god, how come you have such an idea?

Because the concept & idea is completely ilogical

Who gave you the ability to distinguish from good and evil?

I have said ability because i consider good & evil to be human conceptions.
In ancient times human sacrifice was deemed good & acceptable, yet by our own current standards we consider them evil & barbaric, hence, i conclude that they are indeed human constructs, and that it is actually soceity that provide us with them as a whole. Not a wanker in the skies, nor religion

Who gave you the ability to decide what is right and wrong?

See above as this is the same question

Why do we seek answers?

Because that is what we do, it's how our brain works, i think it's the end result of being self conscient.

Just to dispell the whole myth that "thinking men are atheists." One should have the intelligence to know that there has been a great number of scientists, artists, inventors and writers who hold some kind of belief on organized religion.

Irelevant

I'm personally a border line Christian. And, I like to think that atheism is not unlike any other belief. In todays world you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. Until any evidence is shown otherwise, I'm obliged to believe in Christ.

You are only obliged to do so because you believe him to exist, you didn't really contemplate the idea of god not existing. Yet, i myself have reached the conclusion that we, humans, created the concept of god ourselves, as a means to awnser what we couldn't understand. Not to mention how ilogical some religions are (including christianity)

Why not?

The idea and probability that the universe just appeared by chance is just as insane as the idea of a higher power.

Not so, because you not only assume your perseption of god to have just existing, you also assume it exists as a self aware, intelligent being. A being that's not only just there & smart, it's also omnipotent as it supposebly created the universe and all that jazz.

That's a whole lot more insane (to use your word) then to assume that the matter/energy required to create the universe always has been there.

(See, it assumes less things than god, and thus is simpler, and thus is less unlikely)

Oh, and I would rather believe in Christ over any other power as, I merely find Christ more believable. That, and I don't like religions which support blowing people to bits, messing about with people's genetils, worshiping a fat fucker of a guy that never did anything, supports carrying a dagger around with you, or has a god of war.


My, aren't you the prejudised one? You do realise that christian fundamentalism would lead to the same killing as you accuse that other religion about? Why didn't you name them? It's painstakingly obvious that your whole believe system revolves arround ignorance of other believes and the inability of you to even think about why you believe.

Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/4647/no4au.gif

But couldn't this event of communication be the result of your own mind, because you *wanted* to believe?
Well, for one, I *don't* believe in that kind of God, and nothing short of an enormous hand flattening Iran and giving George Bush a high five (or vice-versa, I suppose) would convince me otherwise. Did do long ago, gave up on the logical inconsistencies, experienced the event later and analysed it in the light of understanding the problems with attributing it to the same thing everyone else did.

Secondly, it happened at a completely unexpected moment. I won't bother you with the details, but it was a point during which belief in God was the last thing on my mind, and was also a social event. A sudden, almost alien wisdom, like you can instantly forsee the impact of all possible actions you could ever take... like a window onto the entire universe and all the information within it. I reasoned through a few things and ultimately arrived at a simple explanation: environmental influence of a pack-behaviour variety. But the direct cause wasn't inherently obvious given the particular group I was with at the time. What I think I'd perceived and interacted with was the influence of everyone around me and so also, indirectly, the influences of other people on those people; a giant web of interpersonal links.

God is, in my opinion, simply an expression of the entirity of this system in a way in which most people see things; in terms of themselves. It's not as a concept necessarily completely wrong. Just a personification that has been taken far too far.

Then again, rather like human systems, I suppose the system could itself have a sort of emergent consciousness. It still doesn't make anything humanity has said about it any more correct, nor does it really change the outlook such a philosophy brings.

Either way, it seems that people are subject to organisations that attempt to capitalise this sort of thing. There is no doubt that Organised Religion is a problem that needs to be addressed. But dismissing the very real psychological and sociological issues from which these organisations benefit as complete nonsense is not the way to go about it.

There. Another critique of Atheism. It does nothing constructively to address the problems that lie behind what it criticises.

Well, I would say that the best critique of atheism is that it goes too far with the available evidence: the absense of any conclusive proof in the existence of God is not conclusive proof of his non-existence.

Well, I would say that the best critique of atheism is that it goes too far with the available evidence: the absense of any conclusive proof in the existence of God is not conclusive proof of his non-existence.

What other position logically follows besides skeptical unbelief?

A big post was here


I have to admit that i have trouble understanding you in that post, sorry

Well, I would say that the best critique of atheism is that it goes too far with the available evidence: the absense of any conclusive proof in the existence of God is not conclusive proof of his non-existence.

It's not the absense of evidense alone, i've posted my opinion plentifull times aready, yet nobody seems willing to address it

It's not the absense of evidense alone, i've posted my opinion plentifull times aready, yet nobody seems willing to address it

What page is it on? I didn't bother to read through all 18 pages.

What page is it on? I didn't bother to read through all 18 pages.

...

I've posted it all over the place! :p

Faith, religion & the believe in a deity stem forth from the human mind/psyche, and dates back to the first conscient humans trying to explain the world arround them to themselves. It later evolved as the most primal form of law known to man, with the concept of keeping society in a stable state. Think about it, it does make sense if you look at man's history & the history behind various beliefs. Since i've been here i've also learned alot about various religions even collaborating my theory of the origins of religion.

Also, if you can accept the idea of an omnipotent supernatural being popping into existance (or always have existing) surely it's far less fetched to assume the matter/energy that created the universe also to have always existed?

According to some other religions god is just that, that matter/energy that always existed, and as such isn't a sentient being, or an intelligent being, but just a force if you will.

This is the best wording i've been able to come up with (well, the best in English anyway)

...

I've posted it all over the place! :p



This is the best wording i've been able to come up with (well, the best in English anyway)

I wouldn't necessarily dispute that position, but it still doesn't follow from the fact that human psyches have always wanted an explanation for why the world works as it does, and have come to a conclusion in God, that said belief in God is incorrect. As such, atheism doesn't follow from that descriptive analysis. Any person who truly and rigorously applied the scientific method would be an agnostic, not atheistic.

I wouldn't necessarily dispute that position, but it still doesn't follow from the fact that human psyches have always wanted an explanation for why the world works as it does, and have come to a conclusion in God, that said belief in God is incorrect. As such, atheism doesn't follow from that descriptive analysis. Any person who truly and rigorously applied the scientific method would be an agnostic, not atheistic.

My position explains to me why mankind would come up with this whole god idea, it's not an explication to the origins of the universe in a long shot, it's not supposed to be ;)

My typing is horrible these days :(

I have to admit that i have trouble understanding you in that post, sorry
Hrm... I plan to actually write a proper paper on it at some stage, and I'll spend more time in that on simplifying it further. Perhaps I'll throw you a copy when I get 'round to it.

To summarise the objection: Atheism as a position doesn't constructively address the underlying problem of why people are so susceptible to religion. It rejects the religious as misguided, as if the emotional connection they've experienced is just another part of a grand hoax by a human creation. The notion that what you're feeling is merely part of some external plot is a ridiculous one to them, rather like suggesting that they're really just a computer program that has been coded in such a way as to make them think they are what they are.

If you want to address the problem of Organised religion, you need to do so in a way that deals with the underlying reasons people have for subscribing to said religions. Sitting back and completely ignoring claims of personal, spiritual connection as Superstitious nonsense is not going to convince anyone of anything.

The rationale I took accepts the emotional connections people have to their God as given and explains the expansion of Religion about it, which I reckon to be a more constructive approach than simply "You feel it's right? What kind of lousy reasoning is that?". We can't assume to question the emotions felt by another, even if their explanation for those emotions is suspect. Trust them when they talk about their own feelings has always been my approach. After all, why would they lie? Only Doublethink would have someone believe in something he neither reasons nor feels.

I'm explicit, and i've bloody well demonstrated enough times how i reached that conclusion.

If you're explicit, you have no demonstrated capacity (any more that a theist) to how you reached your conclusion, it's an assumption with no ground in the empirical. Thus a position of (that nasty f word) "faith"...

You have shown me nothing to the contrary.

To summarise the objection: Atheism as a position doesn't constructively address the underlying problem of why people are so susceptible to religion. It rejects the religious as misguided, as if the emotional connection they've experienced is just another part of a grand hoax by a human creation. The notion that what you're feeling is merely part of some external plot is a ridiculous one to them, rather like suggesting that they're really just a computer program that has been coded in such a way as to make them think they are what they are.

If you want to address the problem of Organised religion, you need to do so in a way that deals with the underlying reasons people have for subscribing to said religions. Sitting back and completely ignoring claims of personal, spiritual connection as Superstitious nonsense is not going to convince anyone of anything.

Indeed, I have been giving that a lot of thought, the question of why people believe in a god to begin with.

Not so, because you not only assume your perseption of god to have just existing, you also assume it exists as a self aware, intelligent being. A being that's not only just there & smart, it's also omnipotent as it supposebly created the universe and all that jazz.

That's a whole lot more insane (to use your word) then to assume that the matter/energy required to create the universe always has been there.

(See, it assumes less things than god, and thus is simpler, and thus is less unlikely)




My, aren't you the prejudised one? You do realise that christian fundamentalism would lead to the same killing as you accuse that other religion about? Why didn't you name them? It's painstakingly obvious that your whole believe system revolves arround ignorance of other believes and the inability of you to even think about why you believe.


Prejudised isn't even a word. It's obvious your English vocabulary revolves around a system of ignorance and making words up.

Prejudised isn't even a word. It's obvious your English vocabulary revolves around a system of ignorance and making words up.

Indeed... or a simple spelling error...

It's pretty bad form to attack the spelling, instead of the argument....

Yes you can objectivley attack aeithiesm. Aeithists believe that the universe happened by some random chance and on accident. The likelihood that all the universe just happened in a perfect enough arrangement to support life is like expecting a tornado to put together a house with running water,AC,heating, ect.

People that are outright aeithists and attack every religion are just afraid that there is something out there more powerful then themselves. Agnostics believe there could be but you can't really prove it so their a little less afraid.

My own personal belief is along the lines of deism. God (Or some supreme intelligent being) created the universe and set it into natural order and doesn't interfere with it, he lets us do as we will to either live with him in the next or burn in hell, our choice. We can argue till the end of time that evolution occured or didn't occur Christian and most other religious conservatives will not give an inch and think it had to be exactly the way the bible had it written. Not true Genisis was never meant to be a historical document it was written in a time when the Jews were in captivity and it was meant to remind them that God was their creator. So could have evolution have happened? Certainly, but I believe that God made it happen that way (I mean His God he could have created man any way He wanted. The Catholic Church even produced a official statement,can't remember the name, that it could have been evolution if God had willed it to happen that way.). Personally I don't believe in evolution because there is shaky evidence that it actually occured.

The real question is not whether or not God exists. The real question is what do we do with our lives? Would you rather live a bad life and be a murderer and not believe in God and then when you die you find out there is a God and a hell and hell is where you are going (The opposite being you die and there is nothing), or would you rather not believe in God and live a good virtous life and die and find out there is a God and go to heaven (again opposite being you die and there is nothing). Better safe then sorry I would suppose.

Prejudised isn't even a word. It's obvious your English vocabulary revolves around a system of ignorance and making words up.

Ok, let me get this straight, the fact that my grasp of English, wich isn't my native tongue, is not perfect means i use it out of ignorance & make up words....

The problem being however, that the only error in said word is the substitution of a C with an S...

How perfect is your mastery of the third language you've learned?

If you're explicit, you have no demonstrated capacity (any more that a theist) to how you reached your conclusion, it's an assumption with no ground in the empirical. Thus a position of (that nasty f word) "faith"...

You have shown me nothing to the contrary.

*looks at post 262*
Huh?

Well, maybe you'd prefer i write a 20 page report on all the objections i have on the matter, on all angles i looked at and such? I might have alot of free time on my hands at times, but i'm not *that* bored.

Post 262 is a simplification of one of my conclusions, it's one of the conclusions that i think is the most relevant, and it also (albeit briefly) mentions 2 other items (the plausability of a deity as perceived in religions like christianity & the possibility that the deity might be some force/energy/matter persistant throughout all matter within the universe, a la gaia etc)

But oh well, guess that all those objections & conclusions are me looking up excuses for having the "faith" that there is no god :rolleyes:

Yes you can objectivley attack aeithiesm. Aeithists believe that the universe happened by some random chance and on accident. The likelihood that all the universe just happened in a perfect enough arrangement to support life is like expecting a tornado to put together a house with running water,AC,heating, ect.

And the likelyhood of a supreme supernatural omniscient & omnipotent being popping into existance is more likely? If so, how did you reach that conclusion?

I've heard this argument quite afew times, and it assumes afew things:
It assumes this is the only occurrance of the universe (for all we know the universe has been arround in cycles, collapsing into a singularity & exploding again with different results each time, it's atleast equally likely as your theory of a godlike being)
It assumes that life is impossible in other circumstances then those known to us (If life is nothing more then electro-chemical reactions between materials then it could form with other materials we have yet to conceive)

People that are outright aeithists and attack every religion are just afraid that there is something out there more powerful then themselves. Agnostics believe there could be but you can't really prove it so their a little less afraid.

If that were true (that atheists fear the possibility) then i should logicly fear death.
I don't, i know i'll die sooner or later and i've found peace with that knowledge.

My own personal belief is along the lines of deism. God (Or some supreme intelligent being) created the universe and set it into natural order and doesn't interfere with it, he lets us do as we will to either live with him in the next or burn in hell, our choice.

My biggest problem with such a suposition is that it moves the question of what our origins are & opens up the question what are god's origins. It doesn't solve the puzzle anymore then assuming that it's a random event.

We can argue till the end of time that evolution occured or didn't occur Christian and most other religious conservatives will not give an inch and think it had to be exactly the way the bible had it written.

I would call that fundamentalism, and not believing in evolution opens up a whole other truckload of questions, like, why do they chose to ignore all known fossil records of life on Earth?

Not true Genisis was never meant to be a historical document it was written in a time when the Jews were in captivity and it was meant to remind them that God was their creator.

If you accept the possibility that the OT wasn't a historical document, wouldn't you be able to accept the same position on the NT?

So could have evolution have happened? Certainly, but I believe that God made it happen that way (I mean His God he could have created man any way He wanted. The Catholic Church even produced a official statement,can't remember the name, that it could have been evolution if God had willed it to happen that way.). Personally I don't believe in evolution because there is shaky evidence that it actually occured.

What is the shaky evidence you refer to?

The real question is not whether or not God exists. The real question is what do we do with our lives? Would you rather live a bad life and be a murderer and not believe in God and then when you die you find out there is a God and a hell and hell is where you are going (The opposite being you die and there is nothing), or would you rather not believe in God and live a good virtous life and die and find out there is a God and go to heaven (again opposite being you die and there is nothing). Better safe then sorry I would suppose.

This asumes life without god equals life without morals. I live without god yet i have morals, i am aware of my own mortality, and i am aware that when i die, it's the end, no hell, no heavens above, i just cease to be. I suppose some people would fear that position, but i see such fear as something that will impede on your present quality of life, or "he who fears death, fears life"

As an apologist would argue the question:

If there is no god, how come you have such an idea?Because you need justification for the things you feel & the way you act? - It's always easier to justify your actions & beliefs when you share them with someone you percieve as your 'better'.Who gave you the ability to distinguish from good and evil?Not God, that much is obvious. Because the Bible - to me - is horribly amoral. Arguably, if God supplied my ethics, it's reasonable to assume I wouldn't think of the Christian God as a horribly evil prick in desperate need of a good, violent killing. Right?Who gave you the ability to decide what is right and wrong?Repeat yourself much? I can't stand people who blame their lack of ethics on divinity. It's as pathetic an excuse as peer-pressure, execpt your peers might actually beat you up or redicule you if you don't act in accordance with their wishes. Your invisible friend does no such thing.

Incidentially, why is it people you regard as evil doesn't think of themselves as such? For example, I veiw myself as a fairly ethical individual. Perhaps not in personal relations, but over all, I'd say I have a pretty well-developed sense of how things impact humans.
I have a very limited ability to empathise with others, thus I've examined how things impact others throughout my life. I'm currently leaning towards believing that humanity would be more humane if empathy was a conscious act.Why do we seek answers?What answers? I seek no justification for being. I think it's interesting to know how things work, but I'm a construction worker, so I would say that, wouldn't I? - Existence interests me. If I could, I'd take it apart & put it back together, just like I did when I first got a clock radio.Just to dispell the whole myth that "thinking men are atheists." One should have the intelligence to know that there has been a great number of scientists, artists, inventors and writers who hold some kind of belief on organized religion. There still are. The vast majority of the human population subscribes to an organised religion. However, education often dispells believ in organised religions, so this situation is rapidly changing.I'm personally a border line Christian. And, I like to think that atheism is not unlike any other belief. In todays world you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. Until any evidence is shown otherwise, I'm obliged to believe in Christ.Do as you must. However, I urge you to take responsibility for your own sense of ethics.
By the way, atheism is quite unlike 'any other belief' in that it is the lack of belief in something. There aren't any strings attatched, unlike other beliefs. For example, quite a few Buddhists are atheists, yet live their lives according to guidelines, just like other religious people do.Oh, and I would rather believe in Christ over any other power as, I merely find Christ more believable. That, and I don't like religions which support blowing people to bits, messing about with people's genetils, worshiping a fat fucker of a guy that never did anything, supports carrying a dagger around with you, or has a god of war.Your own God is a god of war, genocide & child murder.
Anyway, I think it's safe to assume you are a person I would consider evil. Amusing, considering the other questions you've posed.

Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?

If the question is asked and we interpret it to mean (can atheism be shown as a false ideology), the answer would be; only with irrefutable proof that false assumptions were used, proven to be false, and ignored in order to propagate the message.

If the question is asked and we interpret it to mean (Can atheism be criticized and attacked logically), the answer would be; logic and reason can be used to attack all ideologies and theories.

If logic and reason are used and a scientific analysis is able to be performed, then the conclusions reached should stem from the facts garnered. Only when we have an axe to grind or a point to prove, are we prone to ignore facts in evidence and "believe" in spite of proof.

Atheism? Pfft. I laugh at atheism.

Now nihilism, that's the stuff.

Shaky evidence being the first model of a neinderthal came from one jaw bone. They made the entire skeletal structure up from one jawbone because they ran out of funding. They also found the jawbone while digging through an ape graveyard.(They have since found many other parts which would suggest that man was once larger, but still thats not taking us from point a, apes, to point b human, its highly doubtful we changed species). Also the fact that there are very few of these skeletons when there should be many many many hundreds if not thousands of them.

The bit about the universe cycle having gone on several(or more times) is an intresting theory and may very well be true, but it would be the natural order of things that God (or some other intelligent being) would have put into place (in my own opinion).

And that does not call into question all of the OT (the part about genisis). Much of the OT is simply just historical document of the Jewish people and not very religious at all. Much of the NT is also historical document written down as witnesses saw it.

And the part about your own morality. I didn't say that all people who didn't believe in God were immoral I was just answering my rhetorical question, by saying it doesnt matter if you believe there is or isn't the fact is you could be wrong either way so better safe then sorry. (Just tryin to be friendly :) )

Shaky evidence being the first model of a neinderthal came from one jaw bone. They made the entire skeletal structure up from one jawbone because they ran out of funding. They also found the jawbone while digging through an ape graveyard.(They have since found many other parts which would suggest that man was once larger, but still thats not taking us from point a, apes, to point b human, its highly doubtful we changed species). Also the fact that there are very few of these skeletons when there should be many many many hundreds if not thousands of them.

Don't take this the wrong way, but i fear you have a very limited knowledge of archeology, evolution & how decay work.

If every single skeleton were to turn into a fossil, you'd have a point, but unfortunatly, this doesn't happen. The requirements for fossilisation are various.

You might find this intresting: http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html

The bit about the universe cycle having gone on several(or more times) is an intresting theory and may very well be true, but it would be the natural order of things that God (or some other intelligent being) would have put into place (in my own opinion).

This still leaves the god being to be unexplained. Unexplained are never good :p

And that does not call into question all of the OT (the part about genisis). Much of the OT is simply just historical document of the Jewish people and not very religious at all. Much of the NT is also historical document written down as witnesses saw it.

Much implies not all, i can live with that

And the part about your own morality. I didn't say that all people who didn't believe in God were immoral I was just answering my rhetorical question, by saying it doesnt matter if you believe there is or isn't the fact is you could be wrong either way so better safe then sorry. (Just tryin to be friendly :) )

The idea of believe out of fear of the afterlife has been brought up numerous times, and even if it held up, how to know wich religion to follow? There's just too damned many of them :p

Do you think that atheism can be objectively critisised/attacked?
interesting question. i dont think it can. the problem here is that the theists would be the ones on the defence, not the offence, because they have to prove that god exists. one line of argument would go like this

1: I am an atheist, god doesnt exist
2: does so!
1: prove it
2: the bible, there's your proof
1: but the bible was written after the fact by people who wanted to gain power.
2: no they weren't, they were pillars of society
*convo ensues with flames from both sides.*

an atheist doesnt need to prove god doesnt exist, because they can easily point out different religions, and the non-existence of classical gods, which the jeudo-christian god effectivly replaced. on the other hand, a theist has to prove that god does exist, because the 'events' of the bible happened about 2000 years ago, and before that, and there has been evidence of corruption throughout that time, not to mention they have to prove that the bible was a) not written after the fact (kinda hard there), and b) written by the apostles, well, the NT at least.

They're all atheists. Atheism, in its broadest sense, is simply the absence of a belief in god(s).
Not in my book either. As someone said on the first page of this thread, the most obvious objective 'attack' on the position of atheism (so far) is agnosticism. Which of course for theists is simply another flavour of atheism. The absence of belief in god(s) can be a denial of the existence of god ('true' atheism) as well as not knowing whether god exists (agnosticism). And even agnostics differ on the question whether it is possible for us to ever know whether god exists. Agnostics admit that they don't have the answers - or aren't even looking for any (and for that reason get criticised by theists and atheists in much the same way).

To those concerned with evidence, you can always join the doctrine of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. ;)

I would like to hear the argument that the bible was written by people who wanted to gain power. Considering Christ told us to be humble and nice and all that jazz.

OT I could kinda see that being there for that reason but most christians don't concentrate on the OT.

The Koran was written more or less as a book of political laws and codes. (Though Muhammad used Islam to gain power.)

I would like to hear the argument that the bible was written by people who wanted to gain power. Considering Christ told us to be humble and nice and all that jazz.

OT I could kinda see that being there for that reason but most christians don't concentrate on the OT.

The Koran was written more or less as a book of political laws and codes. (Though Muhammad used Islam to gain power.)
it was established that the position of pope was as much a position of political power as religious power. couple that with the amount of time between the writing of the bible and its translation into languages that the layman (ie, not bishops, cardials, etc) could understand, and actually get access to, anything could have happened to the texts

Not in my book either. It's usually a good idea to either invent a new language, or refrain from altering an existing.
At least if you wish to communicate meaningfully with others.As someone said on the first page of this thread, the most obvious objective 'attack' on the position of atheism (so far) is agnosticism. Which of course for theists is simply another flavour of atheism. The absence of belief in god(s) can be a denial of the existence of god ('true' atheism) as well as not knowing whether god exists (agnosticism). And even agnostics differ on the question whether it is possible for us to ever know whether god exists. Agnostics admit that they don't have the answers - or aren't even looking for any (and for that reason get criticised by theists and atheists in much the same way).Seriously.. How the fuck can people not know what those two words mean?

Atheism is a catch-all term for non-believers. It doesn't matter if you aren't sure about the possible existence of divinity. As long as you don't believe in one or more deities, you are an atheist.

Agnosticism means the person in question does not believe it is possible to know whether divinity is real or not. It doesn't say anything what so ever about the persons faith or lack there of.
Many, if not most, of the famed Christian philosophers were agnostics. The only reason they didn't describe themselves as such, is because the word 'agnosticism' wasn't invented back when they were around.To those concerned with evidence, you can always join the doctrine of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. ;).. But FSMism's heaven's got a beer volcano..

No, it cannot, but looking at something objectively isn't always the way to go.

Think about it, is love chemical signals sent around your body, or is a deeper, intanginable feeling?

No, it cannot, but looking at something objectively isn't always the way to go.

Think about it, is love chemical signals sent around your body, or is a deeper, intanginable feeling?

Love is choosing to put someone else's needs, wants, and desires before you own. Any "feeling" is just icing.

Surely not from people such as myself, as people such as myself use the term as I do.

Correctly. :)
Most people use the word "myth" incorrectly; that doesn't stop it from being more commonly used.

In reply to post #230.
Not the 'ideal' supernatural, no.
Right; not things actually supernatural, which is what we should be discussing.

The parlour tricks were "real" at some point of time - There was 'more supernatural' back then.
Um.... no. No more than the television show "Supernatural" has today.

In the absolute sense you...might...be right. However, we can't know it now - If ever: The limit of the normal concept is still ever not quite in our grasp: We can't define that what is, will be, super-natural to us, ever.
There. You've justed defined it. Well done.

We can simply dismiss them as personal experiences. Heck, I personally believe in...personal god.
We can dismiss them as a lot of things. People are very good at making excuses.

While I propose that all these effects stem from our, forever, incomplete understanding of ourselves - It doesn't mean that they wouldn't exist.
No argument, there.

Err.... God or god? What's the difference between the two words except the capitalisation? Both mean the same crap
"God" with a capital letter is the name of the monotheistic god, who has very specific characteristics allocated to him (things like omniscience). God with a small case letter is the thing, "god", itself, that has no other characteristics than "supernatural" and "being".

You have 2 hearts? :eek: :D
Yes :) as do you.

It's usually a good idea to either invent a new language, or refrain from altering an existing.
Tell that to the people who use American English. ;p

Tell that to the people who use American English. ;pI was gonna do that until I noticed the government they've elected twice in a row. There are such things as lost causes :p

Well, you could say the same about unicorns. I have no evidence to say they don't exist. However, they've yet to be sighted, and we've not found any fossilised unicorns either. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that unicorns don't exist and never have, until some evidence suggests they do.

I don't see people claiming unicorns exist because we've yet to conclusively prove they don't.
Paul Harvey had a segment earlier this year on this hunter on the east coast (I think) that shot a unicorn, and there is a link online somewhere that shows a picture of the dude holding up the head of the beast, and yeah, it looks like a deer with a horn out of the middle of its forehead. Not a horse, but a smaller creature of some sort.
I had it on my drive but that thing's down indefinitely, so i'll just suggest that someone find it. I might later but don't bet on it.

I would ask you to elaborate but I don't think I can be bothered
Yes, the Skeptics Annotated Bible might do enough for you to be bothered in a different fashion, quite possibly for the better.

It's usually a good idea to either invent a new language, or refrain from altering an existing. At least if you wish to communicate meaningfully with others.
Take it easy. I'm not a native speaker of English. I'd like to hear you express yourself in Dutch. I was referring to someone posting before me who said 'not in my book'. Is it my fault to assume others will try to understand what I mean? ;)

Seriously.. How the fuck can people not know what those two words mean?
I wasn't trying to lecture anyone. But some posts in this thread should give you all the evidence you need. Yours, for example:

Atheism is a catch-all term for non-believers. It doesn't matter if you aren't sure about the possible existence of divinity. As long as you don't believe in one or more deities, you are an atheist.
That's true if you're a theist, or an atheist hardliner. Agnostics typically don't say they don't believe in a deity. So they don't fit your description of atheists.

Agnosticism means the person in question does not believe it is possible to know whether divinity is real or not. It doesn't say anything what so ever about the persons faith or lack there of.
This is only true for some agnostics. There's lots of agnostics who won't go as far as to say it's impossible to know whether god exists. I think this is called 'weak agnosticism'.

Many, if not most, of the famed Christian philosophers were agnostics.
Very true.

Any belief system (or lack of beliefs) is going to come under attack from people. Atheism is religion in that it is a system of non-belief. I think the main problem is how people define it. I am an atheist myself because I do not believe in a higher power of anything like that, but I do still feel that basic features of religion (ten Commandments etc) have some good points to it.

I feel that many people attack it because they feel that people are taking the easy way out or because they cannot understand why people cannot believe in something. I have often been called immoral because of my lack of faith which is another way that people attack. However this seems unreasonable to me. I do not attack you for believing in something so don't attack me for not believing the same thing.

Yes, the position can be attacked and is often but I don't think that anyone can be objective about what they believe.

Take it easy. I'm not a native speaker of English. I'd like to hear you express yourself in Dutch. I was referring to someone posting before me who said 'not in my book'. Is it my fault to assume others will try to understand what I mean? ;)Sorry. Didn't mean to bite your head off, it's just frustrating to see people keep misusing the definitions in debates like this. After all, the terms are fairly critical in this particular thread.I wasn't trying to lecture anyone. But some posts in this thread should give you all the evidence you need. Yours, for example:I hate to disagree, but I'm going to regardless.That's true if you're a theist, or an atheist hardliner. Agnostics typically don't say they don't believe in a deity. So they don't fit your description of atheists.It's a subjective question, not an objective one. It's not something you can say "But I don't know" to. It would be comparable to you answering me "But I don't know" when I ask if you're you or not.This is only true for some agnostics. There's lots of agnostics who won't go as far as to say it's impossible to know whether god exists. I think this is called 'weak agnosticism'.Ah yes.. Forgot about that one. People who either claim that the existence of divinity might be knowable, but maintain that we do not currently know either way.

Agnosticism doesn't extend to your personal belief (or lack there of) in divinity. Only the objective question. Example:
1: Do you believe in God? - If the answer is "But I dunno shit" then you're either dishonest or just insane. You can't be agnostic about a personal belief unless you're stark raving mad.
2: Do you believe there is a God? - If your answer is "We can't know that/We don't know that", then you are an agnostic.

Yes :) as do you.

Hey, i'm not a klingon!
I wonder how many people'll get that one

Take it easy. I'm not a native speaker of English. I'd like to hear you express yourself in Dutch.

Mag het ook in't Vlaams zijn?
Is Flemish also good? For you non Dutch people ;)

Agnosticism doesn't extend to your personal belief (or lack there of) in divinity. Only the objective question. Example:
1: Do you believe in God? - If the answer is "But I dunno shit" then you're either dishonest or just insane. You can't be agnostic about a personal belief unless you're stark raving mad.
2: Do you believe there is a God? - If your answer is "We can't know that/We don't know that", then you are an agnostic.

Agreed... Either you believe or you don't. There is no middle line as far as I can see.

From what I understand agnostic is mainly people who need proof that God (or other deity) exists. That doesn't mean you are unsure whether you believe or disbelieve.

Because you need justification for the things you feel & the way you act? - It's always easier to justify your actions & beliefs when you share them with someone you percieve as your 'better'.Not God, that much is obvious. Because the Bible - to me - is horribly amoral. Arguably, if God supplied my ethics, it's reasonable to assume I wouldn't think of the Christian God as a horribly evil prick in desperate need of a good, violent killing. Right?Repeat yourself much? I can't stand people who blame their lack of ethics on divinity. It's as pathetic an excuse as peer-pressure, execpt your peers might actually beat you up or redicule you if you don't act in accordance with their wishes. Your invisible friend does no such thing.

Incidentially, why is it people you regard as evil doesn't think of themselves as such? For example, I veiw myself as a fairly ethical individual. Perhaps not in personal relations, but over all, I'd say I have a pretty well-developed sense of how things impact humans.
I have a very limited ability to empathise with others, thus I've examined how things impact others throughout my life. I'm currently leaning towards believing that humanity would be more humane if empathy was a conscious act.What answers? I seek no justification for being. I think it's interesting to know how things work, but I'm a construction worker, so I would say that, wouldn't I? - Existence interests me. If I could, I'd take it apart & put it back together, just like I did when I first got a clock radio.There still are. The vast majority of the human population subscribes to an organised religion. However, education often dispells believ in organised religions, so this situation is rapidly changing.Do as you must. However, I urge you to take responsibility for your own sense of ethics.
By the way, atheism is quite unlike 'any other belief' in that it is the lack of belief in something. There aren't any strings attatched, unlike other beliefs. For example, quite a few Buddhists are atheists, yet live their lives according to guidelines, just like other religious people do.Your own God is a god of war, genocide & child murder.
Anyway, I think it's safe to assume you are a person I would consider evil. Amusing, considering the other questions you've posed.

Which is rather amusing because I personally believe you're going to hell.
My nature originally was in good spirit but I lost that tolerance when you started to strip my answer to bits.
I'm a big believer on choice. You can believe in a god but nobody has to.
I find it ironic that you take my prior insulting post, flame me for it and then make your post just as insulting.
I don't consider you evil but I do consider you a blasphemer. But that's my decision and in no way reflects upon you. Perhaps, you should practice what you condemn and grow up. I'm more than happy to agree that my original post was wrong, and I do agree that it was made in ignorance.
I wished I could say your's was made in any less ignorance but then I would be a liar.

Also, what pisses me off is atheists who claim to be the better individual but fail by a considerable standard. I seriously urge you to find a dictionary and look up the word hypocrite. You might find that you somewhat have something in common with the word.

"Which is rather amusing because I personally believe you're going to hell...", "...but I do consider you a blasphemer..."

Oh yeah. Hell and Blasphemy.... that's REALLY going to be a major worry to the Atheist....

Agnosticism doesn't extend to your personal belief (or lack there of) in divinity. Only the objective question. Example:
1: Do you believe in God? - If the answer is "But I dunno shit" then you're either dishonest or just insane. You can't be agnostic about a personal belief unless you're stark raving mad.
2: Do you believe there is a God? - If your answer is "We can't know that/We don't know that", then you are an agnostic.
If you're going to be that pedantic, I agree. :) Thanks for explaining.

But just so you know, the majority of Dutch and Flemish people are ardent followers of The One Whose Existence They Don't Acknowledge. ;)

More seriously, where in your distinction does it leave those who adopt the moral restrictions of a religion but are hesitant to call themselves believers only for lack of proof for god's existence?

Sorry. Didn't mean to bite your head off, it's just frustrating to see people keep misusing the definitions in debates like this.
For myself, I was not misusing the definition, just pointing out a rather common belief about the definition.

Oh yeah. Hell and Blasphemy.... that's REALLY going to be a major worry to the Atheist....
Perhaps not. But that was not the intention of my post.

Perhaps not. But that was not the intention of my post.

What, in all earnestness, WAS the intention of the post?

To bemoan the fact, it appears, that someone had the gall to dismantle what you had deigned to say?

You have condemned someone to eternal damnation, you have called someone a blasphemer... earlier, your ENTIRE response to a post, was to ridicule the poster's spelling.

Before that, you dismissed most of the world religions (except the one you like, apparently) by attempting to trivialise them...

"That, and I don't like religions which support blowing people to bits, messing about with people's genetils, worshiping a fat fucker of a guy that never did anything, supports carrying a dagger around with you, or has a god of war".

(By the way, you notice that, when you spelled 'genitals' incorrectly, it wasn't used as an attack on your entire post?)

So - in all seriousness... what it LOOKS like is:

You are (either really, or pretending to be) a Christian;

You seem to think your opinion is, therefore, worth more than anyone else's;

Indeed, you seem affronted that anyone would even dare to question you wisdom;

You are just plain rude to other cultures.... intolerant of other religions;

I'd have to say... I'm getting the suspicion that what we're actually dealing with here, is something between flamebaiting and trolling.

1: Do you believe in God? - If the answer is "But I dunno shit" then you're either dishonest or just insane. You can't be agnostic about a personal belief unless you're stark raving mad.

I do not see why "I am not certain" is not a perfectly acceptable answer to that question... unless you believe people are machines that are always completely cetrain about what they feel and/or think. I am sure quite a few people who do not believe in God still pray in desperate situations.

I do not see why "I am not certain" is not a perfectly acceptable answer to that question... unless you believe people are machines that are always completely cetrain about what they feel and/or think. I am sure quite a few people who do not believe in God still pray in desperate situations.
When despair kicks in people usually scrabble about for the less rational of behaviours, being desperate and all.
No atheists in foxholes, et cetera.
It's just a matter of rationalizing preceived control, like basically all major religions attest to, inherently.

When despair kicks in people usually scrabble about for the less rational of behaviours, being desperate and all.
No atheists in foxholes, et cetera.
It's just a matter of rationalizing preceived control, like basically all major religions attest to, inherently.

I disagree, at least a little - I think you're overdramatising the situation (yes, I know the foxholes bit is a wellknown phrase :p).

Personally, I vary between rock hard atheism and utter certainty in the existence of God - when I think about it at all, which isn't all that often. I think it's fairer to say that an individual's 'belief' can flucuate wildly, based on a variety of factors. It doesn't need 'desperation' at all, although obviously that's a famous example.

That said 'I don't know' what I believe does make a sort of sense to some people; I don't believe in one position for all that long before I've altered it (from Belief to belief to agnosticism to aethism etc.), based on what's going/gone on with me at the time.

Which is rather amusing because I personally believe you're going to hell.As long as you're going the opposite direction, it's all good.My nature originally was in good spirit but I lost that tolerance when you started to strip my answer to bits.You posed a number of one-line questions. You'll just have to forgive me for assuming you wanted responses to each one.I'm a big believer on choice. You can believe in a god but nobody has to.
I find it ironic that you take my prior insulting post, flame me for it and then make your post just as insulting.It wasn't my intention to flame you. If you think I have, then I urge you to notify the mods. I do not want to have a fight on a messageboard. That would be an excercise in futility, and most likely annoy other posters.I don't consider you evil but I do consider you a blasphemer. But that's my decision and in no way reflects upon you. Perhaps, you should practice what you condemn and grow up. I'm more than happy to agree that my original post was wrong, and I do agree that it was made in ignorance.
I wished I could say your's was made in any less ignorance but then I would be a liar. Also, what pisses me off is atheists who claim to be the better individual but fail by a considerable standard.I'm pleased you've realized just how inane the post in question was. And you're welcome to whatever opinion you have of me. I'm not here to be your internet buddy, and the sole reason I expressed my personal opinion of what sort of individual you presumably are, was to make a point about the moral code you subscribe to. Your opinions may interest me, but your person does not. I'm sure it's mutual.I seriously urge you to find a dictionary and look up the word hypocrite. You might find that you somewhat have something in common with the word.No need to. I'm fully aware of the meaning of the word. You're welcome to whatever opinion you have of me - as I've already said - and I'm not about to try to change that opinion. I couldn't care less what you think of me.

@ The atheism bit & not knowing what one's personal beliefs are..
Atheism is only a descriptive term. It's not a philosophy in & of itself, regardless of how much some people claim otherwise. I'm an atheist because I'm a humanist, and as such don't believe divinity exists. Not the other way around.
And while firm beliefs & opinions are common, I doubt there's anything more human than the ability to change one's mind about particular ideas. If you don't believe in any Gods today, then you're an atheist today. Depending on your beliefs, that might well be different tomorrow. Theists revise their ideas as well. A number of former theists hang out on here, in case you lot hadn't noticed.I do not see why "I am not certain" is not a perfectly acceptable answer to that question... unless you believe people are machines that are always completely cetrain about what they feel and/or think. I am sure quite a few people who do not believe in God still pray in desperate situations.It's not an answer to this question. It's turning a subjective question into an objective one. What do you believe, deep down, at this point in time. Certainty has nothing to do with the answer to this.

I do not see why "I am not certain" is not a perfectly acceptable answer to that question... unless you believe people are machines that are always completely cetrain about what they feel and/or think. I am sure quite a few people who do not believe in God still pray in desperate situations.
I was having trouble with that too. But I think Similized World is making a semantic point, rather than trying to restrict philosophical possibilities. His clearly distinguishing "belief in god" from "belief in god's existence" did make me think twice.
Atheism is only a descriptive term. It's not a philosophy in & of itself, regardless of how much some people claim otherwise. I'm an atheist because I'm a humanist, and as such don't believe divinity exists.
See, this is semantics again. But some opinions you would call atheist are incomplete if you just call them that. As an agnostic I'm as much a person who "doesn't believe god exists" as a person who "doesn't believe god doesn't exist". Atheism, whichever way you put it, literally has the former meaning. What you're referring to, I think, is nontheism, if that's even a word. Although that might include 'complete indifference'.

Anyhow, I think the above is one reason why agnosticism could be an objective 'attack' on atheism - which doesn't make much sense if it's inherently atheist.

I do not see why "I am not certain" is not a perfectly acceptable answer to that question... unless you believe people are machines that are always completely cetrain about what they feel and/or think. I am sure quite a few people who do not believe in God still pray in desperate situations.

I don't pray, but i swear alot, does that count? :p

I was having trouble with that too. But I think Similized World is making a semantic point, rather than trying to restrict philosophical possibilities. His clearly distinguishing "belief in god" from "belief in god's existence" did make me think twice.

See, this is semantics again. But some opinions you would call atheist are incomplete if you just call them that. As an agnostic I'm as much a person who "doesn't believe god exists" as a person who "doesn't believe god doesn't exist". Atheism, whichever way you put it, literally has the former meaning. What you're referring to, I think, is nontheism, if that's even a word. Although that might include 'complete indifference'.
This is the position I think a lot of people are coming from, where atheism is a stance about god, even if it is defined as "no belief". That makes it a philosophical position.

I do not see why "I am not certain" is not a perfectly acceptable answer to that question... unless you believe people are machines that are always completely cetrain about what they feel and/or think.
"I am not certain" is an honest, open-minded and realistic answer, and far more rational and sane than one which comes down firmly on either side when there is no conclusive evidence.

The world would be a much better place if more people would stop drawing conclusions on insufficient evidence, or on illusory grounds such as faith, or because it suits their personal interests or desires.

As long as you're going the opposite direction, it's all good.You posed a number of one-line questions. You'll just have to forgive me for assuming you wanted responses to each one.It wasn't my intention to flame you. If you think I have, then I urge you to notify the mods. I do not want to have a fight on a messageboard. That would be an excercise in futility, and most likely annoy other posters.I'm pleased you've realized just how inane the post in question was. And you're welcome to whatever opinion you have of me. I'm not here to be your internet buddy, and the sole reason I expressed my personal opinion of what sort of individual you presumably are, was to make a point about the moral code you subscribe to. Your opinions may interest me, but your person does not. I'm sure it's mutual.No need to. I'm fully aware of the meaning of the word. You're welcome to whatever opinion you have of me - as I've already said - and I'm not about to try to change that opinion. I couldn't care less what you think of me.

@ The atheism bit & not knowing what one's personal beliefs are..
Atheism is only a descriptive term. It's not a philosophy in & of itself, regardless of how much some people claim otherwise. I'm an atheist because I'm a humanist, and as such don't believe divinity exists. Not the other way around.
And while firm beliefs & opinions are common, I doubt there's anything more human than the ability to change one's mind about particular ideas. If you don't believe in any Gods today, then you're an atheist today. Depending on your beliefs, that might well be different tomorrow. Theists revise their ideas as well. A number of former theists hang out on here, in case you lot hadn't noticed.It's not an answer to this question. It's turning a subjective question into an objective one. What do you believe, deep down, at this point in time. Certainty has nothing to do with the answer to this.


And I am most impressed. I honestly believe you handled my response in a constructive manner.
I must say I have no idea what a humanist is. Would you mind giving me a definition and avoid subjecting me to trawling over many complex web definitions which won't particularly aid my understanding?

Grave_in_idle: I'm sorry you feel that way.

Grave_in_idle: I'm sorry you feel that way.

Are you really?

I still earnestly believe you to be a troll, I'm afraid.

I can see no other way to rationalise your comments.

I must say I have no idea what a humanist is. Would you mind giving me a definition and avoid subjecting me to trawling over many complex web definitions which won't particularly aid my understanding?
Put simply, a Humanist (in the modern use of the word) is a person who bases his life on reason and ethics, without a belief in the supernatural. We require good evidence for what we believe to be true, hence the rejection of gods and the supernatural, and the espousal of scientific method as the best (but not infallible) means of enhancing our knowledge. We believe that morality derives from human instinct and experience, that all human beings deserve respect and compassion (at least until they, as individuals, demonstrate otherwise!), and that we are responsible for our own fate and wellbeing, rather than being subject to any higher authority.

Put simply, a Humanist (in the modern use of the word) is a person who bases his life on reason and ethics, without a belief in the supernatural. We require good evidence for what we believe to be true, hence the rejection of gods and the supernatural, and the espousal of scientific method as the best (but not infallible) means of enhancing our knowledge. We believe that morality derives from human instinct and experience, that all human beings deserve respect and compassion (at least until they, as individuals, demonstrate otherwise!), and that we are responsible for our own fate and wellbeing, rather than being subject to any higher authority.
And what do humanists think of the people who hold that the supernatural is reason and intellect, imagination and human instinct, conscience and compassion, and that there is no higher authority than the human heart? (not the physical organ)

And what do humanists think of the people who hold that the supernatural is reason and intellect, imagination and human instinct, conscience and compassion, and that there is no higher authority than the human heart? (not the physical organ)
We think they're mistaken, because there's no good evidence to support either the supernatural or the existence of a non-physical heart. Reason, intellect, imagination, instinct, conscience and compassion reside in the brain, which is a product of natural evolution. The (non-physical) heart is merely an allegory.

We think they're mistaken, because there's no good evidence to support either the supernatural or the existence of a non-physical heart. Reason, intellect, imagination, instinct, conscience and compassion reside in the brain, which is a product of natural evolution. The (non-physical) heart is merely an allegory.
Yes, allegory. That's the ticket. Then such a person might respond that 'residence' in the body does not disqualify those things from being supernatural. That their immaterial nature places them 'above' (super to) nature.

Yes, allegory. That's the ticket. Then such a person might respond that 'residence' in the body does not disqualify those things from being supernatural. That their immaterial nature places them 'above' (super to) nature.
If they developed in the human body through natural means, then they're not above nature - they're part of it.

But, in any case, they're not immaterial. They may seem so, but the scientific evidence suggests that they are neurological processes, involving the actions of physical neurons, synapses, chemicals etc.

If they developed in the human body through natural means, then they're not above nature - they're part of it.

But, in any case, they're not immaterial. They may seem so, but the scientific evidence suggests that they are neurological processes, involving the actions of physical neurons, synapses, chemicals etc.
No, I was talking about their immaterial nature, not their material nature.

No, I was talking about their immaterial nature, not their material nature.
They don't have an immaterial nature. Their immaterial nature is only a subjective perception (which is itself a material phenomenum).

Are you really?

I still earnestly believe you to be a troll, I'm afraid.

I can see no other way to rationalise your comments.

Logically trolls aren't generally sorry about what they do.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be trolls now would they?
The only way to percieve sincerity is to witness it.

Oh, and to quote The Similized world I really couldn't care less what you think of me.
This is an internet forum. Do you really think I'm going to take your opinion to heart? Seriously, I'm honestly wondering about you here.

Oh, and I thought even Buddhists believed in a non material heart? Even though many of them are agnostic or atheist?

They don't have an immaterial nature. Their immaterial nature is only a subjective perception (which is itself a material phenomenum).
First you claim they do not have an immaterial nature, and then you proceed to describe one, albeit in terms of the material. Which is it?

If I imagine in my mind a butterfly, and you reach into my brain and remove the neurons and chemicals that are responsible for that butterfly image, have you removed a butterfly from my mind?

First you claim they do not have an immaterial nature, and then you proceed to describe one, albeit in terms of the material. Which is it?

If I imagine in my mind a butterfly, and you reach into my brain and remove the neurons and chemicals that are responsible for that butterfly image, have you removed a butterfly from my mind?

Maybe one has more than one mind. A metaphorical mind that only exists in sub conscious. One which relies on your physical mind and vice versa.

In that ying yang sense. That two sides must make a whole.

First you claim they do not have an immaterial nature, and then you proceed to describe one, albeit in terms of the material. Which is it?

If I imagine in my mind a butterfly, and you reach into my brain and remove the neurons and chemicals that are responsible for that butterfly image, have you removed a butterfly from my mind?
Where do I describe something immaterial? Subjective perception itself is an activity of the physical brain. We don't observe its physical nature because our observation is itself a physical activity within the same brain.

The neurons and chemicals are not simply responsible for the butterfly image; they are the butterfly image, and an image is all there ever was in your mind. There was never an actual butterfly there. So yes, if I remove the neurons and synapses which consitute that image, I remove the image. If I remove the neurons and synapses which constitute the memory of that image, you will be unaware that it ever existed.

Where do I describe something immaterial? Subjective perception itself is an activity of the physical brain. We don't observe its physical nature because our observation is itself a physical activity within the same brain.

The neurons and chemicals are not simply responsible for the butterfly image; they are the butterfly image, and an image is all there ever was in your mind. There was never an actual butterfly there. So yes, if I remove the neurons and synapses which consitute that image, I remove the image. If I remove the neurons and synapses which constitute the memory of that image, you will be unaware that it ever existed.
Just so. The butterfly image in the mind is immaterial. There never was an actual butterfly there. Immaterial means with no substance, not real, not actualized. If you remove the material, the immaterial goes away. Immaterial things are perceived in and by the mind, subjective perception. You describe immaterial things, while at the same time denying them.

Just so. The butterfly image in the mind is immaterial. There never was an actual butterfly there. Immaterial means with no substance, not real, not actualized. If you remove the material, the immaterial goes away. Immaterial things are perceived in and by the mind, subjective perception. You describe immaterial things, while at the same time denying them.
The image of the butterfly is a pattern, or number of patterns, of synaptic connections, no more and no less. Synaptic connections are physical.

But a brain is not a mind - for example, psychologists can speak of a modular mind without mentioning the brain. This business of butterflies as neurones, for example... could you help me? I'm not sure I follow. If neurones abc are activated when we see an image, so we know vision is connected with areas xyz... but we don't knowthe exact nature of that connection, so far as I'm aware...?

The image of the butterfly is a pattern, or number of patterns, of synaptic connections, no more and no less. Synaptic connections are physical.
It is the image that is immaterial; it is a butterfly in the mind. It need be no more, no less, to be immaterial.

Synaptic connections are physical (material).

Damn right atheism can be objectively attacked. It's a position taken without proof, and although there's been a lot of sound arguments made by atheists against the tenets of individual religions, there hasn't been much in the way of convincing arguments by atheists that _no_ gods can exist, or that the universe is fundamentally lacking in purpose.

If you want a position that's beyond the reach of objective attacks, it's Agnosticism. Seriously, I challenge anyone to come up with a logical or empirical challenge to that belief system :)GOD:mp5:
Show me proof of any god then ill quit shooting the word. besides... cant we all just get along:fluffle: god :sniper:

See, this is semantics again. But some opinions you would call atheist are incomplete if you just call them that. As an agnostic I'm as much a person who "doesn't believe god exists" as a person who "doesn't believe god doesn't exist". Atheism, whichever way you put it, literally has the former meaning. What you're referring to, I think, is nontheism, if that's even a word. Although that might include 'complete indifference'.

Anyhow, I think the above is one reason why agnosticism could be an objective 'attack' on atheism - which doesn't make much sense if it's inherently atheist.The manner in which you describe yourself has nothing at all to do with agnosticism. Being agnostic about something means that you either don't think the question can be answered at all, or that you don't think the question can be answered presently. It is a purely objective stance, and says absolutely nothing about your personal belief.

The word 'agnostic' basically means that you don't believe there is an answer to a particular question (which doesn't need to involve divine aspects, by the way). It does absolutely not mean that you personally believe either or both answers are valid or invalid.

Agnosticism cannot be an attack on atheism. Agnostic arguments can be used to criticise some schools of thought, including atheistic ones, but not the term itself - because atheism is not a philosophical school of thought in itself. It's a descriptive term, just like the word 'math' is. 2+2 is math. As is 2-2. Atheism is Buddhism. It's also humanism. And just like 2+2 & 2-2, those are radically opposed ideas. Yet both are atheism.
In general terms, however, agnosticism isn't a critique of anything, as it doesn't exclude belief or disbelief. It's only descriptive of an approach to the objective question of whether there is an answer or not.

And sure, it's semantics. But it's also very basic English. And in a debate where you try to express your own position on something, improper use results in general confusion. I, for example, currently haven't got the slightest idea whether you're theist or atheist. Nor do I know whether you're agnostic about it or not.

Argh..

The manner in which you describe yourself has nothing at all to do with agnosticism. Being agnostic about something means that you either don't think the question can be answered at all, or that you don't think the question can be answered presently. It is a purely objective stance, and says absolutely nothing about your personal belief.

The word 'agnostic' basically means that you don't believe there is an answer to a particular question (which doesn't need to involve divine aspects, by the way). It does absolutely not mean that you personally believe either or both answers are valid or invalid.

Agnosticism cannot be an attack on atheism. Agnostic arguments can be used to criticise some schools of thought, including atheistic ones, but not the term itself - because atheism is not a philosophical school of thought in itself. It's a descriptive term, just like the word 'math' is. 2+2 is math. As is 2-2. Atheism is Buddhism. It's also humanism. And just like 2+2 & 2-2, those are radically opposed ideas. Yet both are atheism.
In general terms, however, agnosticism isn't a critique of anything, as it doesn't exclude belief or disbelief. It's only descriptive of an approach to the objective question of whether there is an answer or not.

And sure, it's semantics. But it's also very basic English. And in a debate where you try to express your own position on something, improper use results in general confusion. I, for example, currently haven't got the slightest idea whether you're theist or atheist. Nor do I know whether you're agnostic about it or not.

Argh..


To which branch of Buddhism are you referring to?
Some branches of Buddhism follow a more agnostic type of belief.
Take for example, Pureland Buddhism. Which is in particular, quite supernatural.

Logically trolls aren't generally sorry about what they do.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be trolls now would they?
The only way to percieve sincerity is to witness it.

Oh, and to quote The Similized world I really couldn't care less what you think of me.
This is an internet forum. Do you really think I'm going to take your opinion to heart? Seriously, I'm honestly wondering about you here.

Oh, and I thought even Buddhists believed in a non material heart? Even though many of them are agnostic or atheist?

Perhaps you shouldn't wonder about me... you are not presenting a coherent platform You claim to be Christian, and yet you act in a most unChristian fashion.

You become offended if someone has the temerity to so much as respond to elements of your posts:

"My nature originally was in good spirit but I lost that tolerance when you started to strip my answer to bits".

And, you were just plain insulting to other religions:

"That, and I don't like religions which support blowing people to bits, messing about with people's genetils, worshiping a fat fucker of a guy that never did anything, supports carrying a dagger around with you, or has a god of war".

I can GUESS which religions you mean, by each insult... but, I'm afraid that your insults say more about you as a person than they do about the religions you dismiss.

One assumes you mean Islam, as the religion that "support[s] blowing people to bits"... and yet that gleefully glosses over the fact that 'Christian' terrorists have waged a war of terror for a long time before the so-called "jihadi" came on the scene.

One assumes that you mean Buddhism, when you write of "a fat fucker of a guy that never did anything"... and yet this just shows your prejudice and lack of information about the life of (ONE incarnation of) the Buddha.

So... lack of information, coupled with deliberate aggression and flamebaiting taunts?

You may act all affronted... but your ACTIONS scream 'troll'.

I would like to hear the argument that the bible was written by people who wanted to gain power. Considering Christ told us to be humble and nice and all that jazz.

OT I could kinda see that being there for that reason but most christians don't concentrate on the OT.

The Koran was written more or less as a book of political laws and codes. (Though Muhammad used Islam to gain power.)


Do you know what the Book of Common Prayer, is?

It was one of the first repoductions of the bible, that was translated into English.

You see, before that, the bible, in those days, was written and read from, in Latin.
Latin was the language of the rich, and educated.

Someone figured out that it would be much easier to control ones people, if they believed, what you wanted them to.
So, they translated parts, and sections of the bible, into english, so that the everyday man, who could read at all....could read the bible.
However, not all of the bible was printed.
Only very selelect parts, and certain passages that enforced the rule of the elite and powerful, and submittance to ones king.

And sure, it's semantics. But it's also very basic English. And in a debate where you try to express your own position on something, improper use results in general confusion.
Let me start by agreeing with you on that. I apologise for not being able to express my thoughts very clearly in a foreign language. I'm not being sarcastic.

I, for example, currently haven't got the slightest idea whether you're theist or atheist. Nor do I know whether you're agnostic about it or not.
I'll try and state it as clearly as I can. I'm not a theist, but I don't call myself an atheist. The ambiguity isn't mine; Atheism means "believing god doesn't exist", as well as "not believing god exists". The former doesn't apply to me, the latter does, but only partly.

The manner in which you describe yourself has nothing at all to do with agnosticism. Being agnostic about something means that you either don't think the question can be answered at all, or that you don't think the question can be answered presently. It is a purely objective stance, and says absolutely nothing about your personal belief.
I'm agnostic in as far as I admit that I don't know whether the question can be answered, now or ever. According to your definition, agnostics have to be decided about this, so I can't be agnostic. Well perhaps I shouldn't call myself that. But for lack of a better word, I just blurted it out. It may not be proper English usage, but as far as I know I'm not talking Swahili. I'm not trying to, bwana.

Agnosticism cannot be an attack on atheism. Agnostic arguments can be used to criticise some schools of thought, including atheistic ones, but not the term itself - because atheism is not a philosophical school of thought in itself. It's a descriptive term, just like the word 'math' is.
I agree with you on that, and I can't figure out why you think I've said anything like it, really. All I was trying to say is that both atheism and theism are decided about the existence of god. Rejecting that decidedness is (I think) an agnostic viewpoint. I'm aware that agnostic strictly takes no stance about the existence of god, but doesn't English have a less strict connotation of the word, something like "religious agnosticism"? Mommy, they're doing semantics again! ;)

But seriously, perhaps we best drop the conversation about finding out just what I mean and how I should express it. I earnestly never intended to show off my personal beliefs, or nitpick about how different I am from the rest of you. I'd be happy to sit back and watch the show continue, because I do take interest in the subject and I'm weighing the rest of you down a little.

Being agnostic about something means that you either don't think the question can be answered at all, or that you don't think the question can be answered presently.
No; it's the former. It means that you think the question of god is unanswerable, period. You said it best when you said, "The word 'agnostic' basically means that you don't believe there is an answer to a particular question (which doesn't need to involve divine aspects, by the way)."

I'm agnostic in as far as I admit that I don't know whether the question can be answered, now or ever. According to your definition, agnostics have to be decided about this, so I can't be agnostic.
That is an important distinction, though the dictionary specifies both as agnostic. I used to be at such a point, and I would hestitate to stick myself with any label in regards to religion. I respect your desire not to be stuck.

I respect your desire not to be stuck.
Thank you for that. Now all I'm stuck with is hesitation. ;)

From the Wikipedia article on Agnosticism:
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well as other matters of religion.
Semantics. So there. I'm outta here. :D

No; it's the former. It means that you think the question of god is unanswerable, period. You said it best when you said, "The word 'agnostic' basically means that you don't believe there is an answer to a particular question (which doesn't need to involve divine aspects, by the way)."Yups. But by popular demand, that seems to have changed slightly when concerning divinity. Right now, the definition of agnosticism, in regards to divinity, seems to encompass the belief that the answer isn't presently known - with the implication that it may at some point be known.


That is an important distinction, though the dictionary specifies both as agnostic. I used to be at such a point, and I would hestitate to stick myself with any label in regards to religion. I respect your desire not to be stuck.One's personal opinion of what the answer to (whatever) may be, has nothing to do with being agnostic. At least, I have never in my life seen a dictionary claim any such thing.

@ Pergamor, I didn't mean to bash your english skills. Dog knows I'm terrible at it. But it is rather important to use descriptive definitions in the commonly accepted manner. Imagine we were talking about geometry here. We'd get nowhere if 1/3 of the posters in the thread insisted on calling sqares circles & rectangles hectagons.

One's personal opinion of what the answer to (whatever) may be, has nothing to do with being agnostic. At least, I have never in my life seen a dictionary claim any such thing.
It's not a matter of attempting to over-ride what the word means with a personal opinion, at least that is not the intent. Words have meaning, and a lot of how we learn them is by rote through association with others. This (what he described above) is what the word does mean to a lot of people.

While I agree that consensus on one meaning in a specific context (semantics) is important for good communication, it's also important to recognize that the person who has this meaning of the word has learned it in a larger context of his associations, who would also have given it the same meaning. It's not just a simple misunderstanding --and that's why dictionaries change.

Perhaps you shouldn't wonder about me... you are not presenting a coherent platform You claim to be Christian, and yet you act in a most unChristian fashion.

You become offended if someone has the temerity to so much as respond to elements of your posts:



And, you were just plain insulting to other religions:



I can GUESS which religions you mean, by each insult... but, I'm afraid that your insults say more about you as a person than they do about the religions you dismiss.

One assumes you mean Islam, as the religion that "support[s] blowing people to bits"... and yet that gleefully glosses over the fact that 'Christian' terrorists have waged a war of terror for a long time before the so-called "jihadi" came on the scene.

One assumes that you mean Buddhism, when you write of "a fat fucker of a guy that never did anything"... and yet this just shows your prejudice and lack of information about the life of (ONE incarnation of) the Buddha.

So... lack of information, coupled with deliberate aggression and flamebaiting taunts?

You may act all affronted... but your ACTIONS scream 'troll'.


And your replies scream "arse." Want to back that up for me too, while you're at it?

And your replies scream "arse." Want to back that up for me too, while you're at it?

:rolleyes: Yep, must be a christian allright, turning the other cheek & all that jazz, yep, you proved it allright

Note: this is sarcasm, i'm mocking you

Yes i do, if you look at religion & mankinds history objectively one might conclude that it's a human consept & construct originating of mankinds unability of explaining his own existance (self conscience is a bugger eh? :p )

On the other hand there are the circumstances which defy science and logic and remain unexplained labeled only as "miricles" left to those "supernatural" powers.

Besides, Atheism relys largely on Science for its own ideological structure.. and science discounts nothing when lack of proof either for or against is absent.

On the other hand there are the circumstances which defy science and logic and remain unexplained labeled only as "miricles" left to those "supernatural" powers.

Rain was once considered a miracle too

Besides, Atheism relys largely on Science for its own ideological structure.. and science discounts nothing when lack of proof either for or against is absent.

Science actually has little to do with it, although it might enforce one's belief that he's not real. The basic premise of atheism is absense for a belief in a god.

How you reach this discission is entirely up to the individual. My first reasoning for not believing in a god came arround the age of 10, when i really started pondering on the idea of a god, basicly, i got stuck on the 'if god made us, where the hell did he come from?', later on, i learned about other religions, came to a better understanding of history, science and by observing the people arround me, aswell as myself, i also learned to understand why people seemed to need faith.

Maybe if certain events in my life took place later on, or earlier in my life, i might never have started questioning it, but once you start questioning your upbringing & everything you believe in, and you find something very wrong in those beliefs, one tends to fix the problems theirin.

Rain was once considered a miracle too
What do you mean, "once"?

A miracle is what is perceived as such. :)

What do you mean, "once"?

A miracle is what is perceived as such. :)

You know what i mean ;)

And your replies scream "arse." Want to back that up for me too, while you're at it?

You want me to 'back it up' for you?

Does this mean I am 'a big fine woman'?

Or am I missing something.


In all seriousness, though... if your one post consists of insults to religions... not even any DISCUSSION of those religiions... just insults. And, if your next post consists of harassment of another poster for daring to question your opinion, once thou hast spoken...

What IS the purpose of the posts... if NOT to bait flame?

And, why do you call me 'arse'... based on the incomprehensible vitriol you have posted?

Evidence is the only thing you can't use because it's basicly unexistant eighter way


No no no, evidence does exist.



Proof doesn't.


You only, ONLY, have EVIDENCE of everything and anything that you "know" or "think." The "fact" that you see a computer in front of you, and taste food, and feel hot and cold, all means nothing. You can't prove that anything really exists.



But to make things less annoying, we consider anything that you have so much evidence for that denying it is an idiotic and moronic undertaking to be fact.




EDIT: And of course I am completely ignoring the entire conversation to say that one thing.

Atheism = No Theism = No God by definition Atheism isn't simply lack of belief in a particular God but is the positive assertion that there is no God. To do this the atheist must define God then assert that the previously defined God does not exist.

this then runs into two problems 1. The atheist must have an accurate definition of God - good luck with that one, entire civilizations who do believe in God/gods have tried and failed so how do you propose to find evidence that defines something in which you do not believe.

2. for the assertion to have weight the atheist must prove his/her definition of God is accurate, and then must not simply prove God isn't around at that time but must prove the impossibility of God having ever been around. If God exits then why... questions simply don't pass muster. These questions only try to define God in as much as they ask about limits of His will or power.

Positive atheists eventually always retreat to occam's razor claiming that it is simpler to believe God didn't have a hand in event X usually creation of the universe. But again this is only as much as asking the question of If God exists why didn't God create the universe through another method.

So proper atheism involves three steps roughly
1. Creating a religion
2. proving that religion right
3. Proving same religion wrong

Agnosticism/Implicit atheism - is saying there might be a God but it's not your God. It is actually a much weaker intellectual position than positive atheism. Because the agnostic does not propose an alternative assertion which can then be tested against the assertion of God they claim is wrong. In fact this position must lose all its associations with science and religion because both science and religion as a study would obligate the agnostic to find the correct assertion at which point the agnostic must either examine another religion or make the same assertions as the positive atheist.

So we may at least admire the industry of the atheist who will work to disprove himself, while the agnostic we must simply dismiss as lazy.


OK,

Your definition of atheism almost works - it's from the Greek meaning without god - It requires as much faith to be without god as it does to be with god - so on that basis, it's as easy to argue critically against atheism as it is to argue critically against theism (a belief in deity) - all one has to do is to go after the basic premise - which is based, not on fact, but on faith.

I, do however, quibble with your assertions about agnosticism. The definition is, again, from the Greek, meaning without knowledge (gnosis=knowledge, facts, information). Agnostics aren't intellectually lazy, we just don't feel comfortable making leaps of faith. We actually want information, not just assertions and opinions based on wishful thinking and some fuzzy notion that there had to be a "source" for everything. Most agnostics I know would like to be able to believe in something greater than man - we just keep running into the lack of facts backing up both belief in god(s) and atheism.:headbang:

Do you know what the Book of Common Prayer, is?

It was one of the first repoductions of the bible, that was translated into English.
No it is not! The Book of Common Prayer is a service book, not a Bible.

The first English translation of the Bible was produced by John Wycliffe in the 1380s. The first translations from the original Greek and Hebrew were produced by William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale in the 1530s. Coverdale produced the first officially-recognized English Bible, the "Great Bible", in 1539.

The first Book of Common Prayer was published ten years later, in 1549.

You see, before that, the bible, in those days, was written and read from, in Latin.
... in the western church only.

You want me to 'back it up' for you?

Does this mean I am 'a big fine woman'?

Or am I missing something.


In all seriousness, though... if your one post consists of insults to religions... not even any DISCUSSION of those religiions... just insults. And, if your next post consists of harassment of another poster for daring to question your opinion, once thou hast spoken...

What IS the purpose of the posts... if NOT to bait flame?

And, why do you call me 'arse'... based on the incomprehensible vitriol you have posted?


The purpose of these posts is to convey my honest opinion. Unless you haven't be educated on the matter, it is a sin to lie.

I thought it rather obviously why I called you an arse. Perhaps, it is just your nature. But, all you've done is to try and push me further and further into a flame war. You have not attempted to use rationality or maturity. In fact I question your true nature.

With regards to acting like a Christian. Do you like to generalise the beliefs of 2,039 million people? Or haven't you met very many Christians. If all Christians were understanding and tolerant then there would be no pendulum looming over Christian history and its present affairs.

Like I said I'm sorry you feel that way but unless you're going to level off the playing field and show some rationaility, instead of discarding opinions that aren't your own then honestly what do you expect me to think?

Note: Judging by your past posts I assume that you have suffecient reading comprehension and cognitive skills to decipher that, that was a rhetorical question.

The purpose of these posts is to convey my honest opinion. Unless you haven't be educated on the matter, it is a sin to lie.

It's a sin to bear false witness against thy neighbor. Get it straight.
I bet Grave could wax the floor with you, and he seems to be doing a pretty good job of it.
If your purpose is to convey your honest opinion, then expect to get it back.
And if *YOU* are an arse about it, expect it back in spades.

It's a sin to bear false witness against thy neighbor. Get it straight.
I bet Grave could wax the floor with you, and he seems to be doing a pretty good job of it.
If your purpose is to convey your honest opinion, then expect to get it back.
And if *YOU* are an arse about it, expect it back in spades.

I find myself confused. I seem to be being accused of unfairness, by someone who - a few pages back - dismissed Judaism as 'people messing with each other's genitals', Islam as 'a religion about blowing people up', and Buddhism as being about 'a fat fucker who never did anything'. (Not exact quotes, but close to the spirit... I can go look for the quotes, if they are needed).

The same poster then got bent out of shape, because another poster dared to question his (her?) faith.

And then... somehow... I'M the bad guy...

Ah well, I doubt I'll lose any sleep over it.

The purpose of these posts is to convey my honest opinion. Unless you haven't be educated on the matter, it is a sin to lie.


I have, indeed, been educated upon the matter, my friend... perhaps better than you allow for.

It MIGHT be worth noting, here, that lying is NOT a sin.

Or rather... it depends on WHO you lie to, and why.

Example: Hebrews 11:31 "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace"

In context with: Joshua 2:1-4 "And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into a harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there. And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither tonight of the children of Israel to search out the country. And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country. And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were"

and Joshua 6:25 "And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho"

Look also, at James 2:25 "Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?"

As we can see, in serving Jehovah, Rahab lied to temporal powers, and, according to James, it was counted towards her as righteousness.


I thought it rather obviously why I called you an arse. Perhaps, it is just your nature. But, all you've done is to try and push me further and further into a flame war. You have not attempted to use rationality or maturity. In fact I question your true nature.


I have made no such attempt to 'push you to a flame war'. You made horrendous accusations about the nature of other religions. You condemned another poster to Hell because they dared to question your posts in detail.

I wish not to flame, or to receive your flames.

I wish to understand what agenda rationalises these actions.

Because, to the outsider, it just makes you look like a 'troll'. But, I would gladly hear your defense.


With regards to acting like a Christian. Do you like to generalise the beliefs of 2,039 million people?


You don't see the irony, do you? You just generalised 2 billion people, by implying that any comments about Christianity, would apply to ALL of those people...

Or haven't you met very many Christians. If all Christians were understanding and tolerant then there would be no pendulum looming over Christian history and its present affairs.


I don't see the relevence. And, believe me, my friend... I have met my share of Christians.. of a wealth of different denominational backgrounds.

Like I said I'm sorry you feel that way but unless you're going to level off the playing field and show some rationaility, instead of discarding opinions that aren't your own then honestly what do you expect me to think?


I do not 'discard' opinion, my friend... I QUESTION opinions, as I should.

It's a sin to bear false witness against thy neighbor. Get it straight.
I bet Grave could wax the floor with you, and he seems to be doing a pretty good job of it.
If your purpose is to convey your honest opinion, then expect to get it back.
And if *YOU* are an arse about it, expect it back in spades.

Believe me, if I wanted to be an arse. You'd know about it.

Technicly, he's correct, at birth we're all atheists, because well, i've never seen a newborn quote the bible or pray, the only thing a newborn cares about is sucking on mom's tit :p
Um, one can be religious without reading the bible.

Look at the Jews :D
(They have no bible only Torah and Talmud).

How do you know babies don't pray...I've never asked (they don't speak english yet so no luck also).

Atheists im my opinion is the belief against god.

Agnostic is you don't know.

Theist: you believe there is a god.

So Everyone is born Agnostic.

Um, one can be religious without reading the bible.

Look at the Jews :D
(They have no bible only Torah and Talmud).

Actually those ARE bibles :P

Objectivity is overrated.

Well it really depends on what type of atheism you're talking about. Using to most literal definition atheist means not theist and all it really takes to not be theist is to go your whole life without hearing the word god. What most people define as atheism would really be better defined as antitheism because it's against theism.

So in answer to the original question:
Atheism: no
Antitheism: yes

With regards to acting like a Christian. Do you like to generalise the beliefs of 2,039 million people? Or haven't you met very many Christians. If all Christians were understanding and tolerant then there would be no pendulum looming over Christian history and its present affairs.
I think Grave was referring to something like this...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9637441&postcount=7

When one is informed by god's love, one behaves accordingly.

Believe me, if I wanted to be an arse. You'd know about it.
Believe me, that's old news.

EDIT:

It MIGHT be worth noting, here, that lying is NOT a sin.

Or rather... it depends on WHO you lie to, and why.

Example: Hebrews 11:31 "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace"

In context with: Joshua 2:1-4 "And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came into a harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there. And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither tonight of the children of Israel to search out the country. And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into thine house: for they be come to search out all the country. And the woman took the two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not whence they were"

and Joshua 6:25 "And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho"

Look also, at James 2:25 "Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?"

As we can see, in serving Jehovah, Rahab lied to temporal powers, and, according to James, it was counted towards her as righteousness.

Yeah, that floor's starting to look shiny. ;)

Um, one can be religious without reading the bible.

Look at the Jews :D
(They have no bible only Torah and Talmud).

How do you know babies don't pray...I've never asked (they don't speak english yet so no luck also).

Atheists im my opinion is the belief against god.

Agnostic is you don't know.

Theist: you believe there is a god.

So Everyone is born Agnostic.

Atheism is simply 'being without god'. It can be the outright denial of god, or it can be a simple lack of belief.

For most, it is actually the latter.

Agnostics are not just 'randomly uncertain'... they believe it is impossible to know FOR SURE if there IS a god, or NOT. That doesn't affect their 'belief'. There are Atheistic Agnostics, and Theistic Agnostics.

We are not born 'undecided' about religion.... we are born 'uninformed'. Thus - we lack belief... which makes us (Implicit) Atheists.

Atheism is simply 'being without god'. It can be the outright denial of god, or it can be a simple lack of belief.

For most, it is actually the latter.

Agnostics are not just 'randomly uncertain'... they believe it is impossible to know FOR SURE if there IS a god, or NOT. That doesn't affect their 'belief'. There are Atheistic Agnostics, and Theistic Agnostics.

We are not born 'undecided' about religion.... we are born 'uninformed'. Thus - we lack belief... which makes us (Implicit) Atheists.

Since quite a few pages of this topic contain disagreement of what atheism, agnosticism and "not believing cause you never heard of god" are may I suggest we adopt an adapted system of names for debates on this forum ?

My suggestion:
Theist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" -and also assumes god(s) has/have a positive active interest in humanity and the universe ("God watches over us").
Deist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" - but assumes god(s) does not have an active interest in the universe/humanity ("God has a life").
Maltheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" - but assumes god(s) evil ("God is a Jerk")
Atheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "no" ("There is no reason to believe").
Antitheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "NO" - while vehemently opposing those who say yes ("Believing is stupid").
Agnost: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "impossible to know".
Nontheist: someone who has never heard of god(s), never really thought about it or simply doesn't know how they feel ("I dunno")
Spiritualist: someone who does not believe in god(s) - but does believe in somthing higher ("There is something")

Feel free to correct and add your own...

Since quite a few pages of this topic contain disagreement of what atheism, agnosticism and "not believing cause you never heard of god" are may I suggest we adopt an adapted system of names for debates on this forum ?

My suggestion:
Theist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" -and also assumes god(s) has/have a positive active interest in humanity and the universe ("God watches over us").
Deist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" - but assumes god(s) does not have an active interest in the universe/humanity ("God has a life").
Maltheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" - but assumes god(s) evil ("God is a Jerk")
Atheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "no" ("There is no reason to believe").
Antitheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "NO" - while vehemently opposing those who say yes ("Believing is stupid").
Agnost: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "impossible to know".
Nontheist: someone who has never heard of god(s), never really thought about it or simply doesn't know how they feel ("I dunno")
Spiritualist: someone who does not believe in god(s) - but does believe in somthing higher ("There is something")

Feel free to correct and add your own...

Good suggestion, as descriptions as labels go.
Good post. *bows*

you can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. It can be made harder and harder to beleive or more and more easy but you can never prove with certainty weather he exists or not

Since quite a few pages of this topic contain disagreement of what atheism, agnosticism and "not believing cause you never heard of god" are may I suggest we adopt an adapted system of names for debates on this forum ?

My suggestion:
Theist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" -and also assumes god(s) has/have a positive active interest in humanity and the universe ("God watches over us").
Deist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" - but assumes god(s) does not have an active interest in the universe/humanity ("God has a life").
Maltheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "yes" - but assumes god(s) evil ("God is a Jerk")
Atheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "no" ("There is no reason to believe").
Antitheist: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "NO" - while vehemently opposing those who say yes ("Believing is stupid").
Agnost: someone who thought about the question if god(s) exists or not and decided to answer with "impossible to know".
Nontheist: someone who has never heard of god(s), never really thought about it or simply doesn't know how they feel ("I dunno")
Spiritualist: someone who does not believe in god(s) - but does believe in somthing higher ("There is something")

Feel free to correct and add your own...

Sounds more than reasonable to me. I don't know how you'd sell it to the "All Atheists hate God" crowd, though...