NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, even though im a "devout" atheist im gonna do the right thing because everyone (especially me) takes cracks at religions, so why not atheism.

Note, agnosticism could also be included but less so as they are unsure of belief whereas atheists have actual Belief in No god.

Reasons for atheism

Logical Arguements against god
Tis the coolest
you dont have to live up to religious morals (unless your unluck enough to live in a theocratical country)

Reasons against atheism

So... in the beginning there was nothing, which exploded BRAVO brains...
Noone to talk to during sex
No afterlife (EEEK)

Ok, even though im a "devout" atheist im gonna do the right thing because everyone (especially me) takes cracks at religions, so why not atheism?

Because Atheism isn't a religion. Next question.

I find atheists are really agnostics with too much pride.

Who the funk talks to god during sex?! I get calling out his name and that (;) ) but not talking to him. Unless that's what you meant.

And atheism doesn't mean no afterlife. Tecnically reincarnation is a possibility compatible with atheism. But I'm just nit-picking.

Because Atheism isn't a religion.

It's a way of life.

Note, agnosticism could also be included but less so as they are unsure of belief whereas atheists have actual Belief in No god.

I think you misunderstand what agnosticism is. I'm agnostic, and I truly believe that the existence of G/god(s) cannot be proven.

I find atheists are really agnostics with too much pride.
I've often come to the same conclusion.
But, Atheism is much more of a faith than doubt.
They believe there is no "God" ( which is often the case, not very multicultural, but who am I to judge ).

I find atheists are really agnostics with too much pride.
or perhaps agnostics are just a cowardly version of atheists. They know the truth that there is no god but are too afraid of accepting what that means.

Because Atheism isn't a religion. Next question.
Wow! We need to set you free on the talk show circuit. Give you a question and you come up with a short, one sentence answer.

Let's see...
Who would win a fight - Buddha or Fidel Castro?

I was under the impression that agnostics were unsure or uncaring whereas atheists disbelieve and anti-theists believe but hate the f*cker

or perhaps agnostics are just a cowardly version of atheists. They know the truth that there is no god but are too afraid of accepting what that means.
Yeah, exactly. I'm scared that there might be complete oblivion and nothingness after I die. In fact, I lie awake at night, shitting myself about the possibility that this could be the case. Sometimes I just don't see the point in living, because of what might (or might not) happen after I die.

Some atheists don't so much believe there are no gods, as see no meaning in the question in the first place. Tricky to disbelieve in something when the question of its existence is pre-empted.

or perhaps agnostics are just a cowardly version of atheists. They know the truth that there is no god but are too afraid of accepting what that means.

Or perhaps they're cowardly theists, afraid of what it means that there is a god?

They know the truth that there is no god but are too afraid of accepting what that means.

And what does that mean?

Wow! We need to set you free on the talk show circuit. Give you a question and you come up with a short, one sentence answer.

Let's see...
Who would win a fight - Buddha or Fidel Castro?
Castro.

Who would win a fight - Buddha or Fidel Castro?

The Buddha would so totally braid Fidel's beard.

It's a way of life.

Yup, every Thursday I have to get out of bed early and trudge down to the anti-church to listen to the dark-pope deliver a non-sermon to the dis-interested congregation.

It's a hard lifestyle I tell you. :(

Wow! We need to set you free on the talk show circuit. Give you a question and you come up with a short, one sentence answer.

Let's see...
Who would win a fight - Buddha or Fidel Castro?

Chuck Norris, obvious really.

And what does that mean?
that there is no real point to life, no magically fairy is watching over you, once your dead, your dead, end of life. etc, etc

Yup, every Thursday I have to get out of bed early and trudge down to the anti-church to listen to the dark-pope deliver a non-sermon to the dis-interested congregation.

It's a hard lifestyle I tell you. :(

The congregation in theist churches are dis-interested too ;)

I always thought agnostics were the sissies who didn't believe in a real religion, but were too afraid that they might be wrong to completely denounce the existance of a higher being. Ironically, you're fucked either way if God (or whatever) really exists.

As a Christian, I always (jokingly) say that I'm set. Of all the religions, I've got the best bet if mine is right. If I'm right, I go to heaven. If the Buddhists are right, I'm just set back a few steps - maybe I'll be reincarnated as a bug or something. If Mormons are right, I just get to chill in the 2nd or 3rd level of heaven. The list goes on. The only religion that I'm really screwed for is if the Muslims are right.

Yup, every Thursday I have to get out of bed early and trudge down to the anti-church to listen to the dark-pope deliver a non-sermon to the dis-interested congregation.

It's a hard lifestyle I tell you. :(

Dont be so stupid!!!

we listen to the dark-pope deliver to a non-sermon to the INTERESTED congregation ;)
Unlike christians

I find atheists are really agnostics with too much pride.
ive always thought of agnostics as atheists in denial.

Some atheists don't so much believe there are no gods, as see no meaning in the question in the first place. Tricky to disbelieve in something when the question of its existence is pre-empted.
Wouldn't that fall into the "fill-a-bubble" on standardized tests that read: Not Raised in Any Religion?
Religion here implying, I would imagine, faith.

or perhaps agnostics are just a cowardly version of atheists. They know the truth that there is no god but are too afraid of accepting what that means.

Prove God doesn't exist, go on.

Or perhaps they're cowardly theists, afraid of what it means that there is a god?
perhaps

that there is no real point to life, no magically fairy is watching over you, once your dead, your dead, end of life. etc, etc
A magic fairy watches over me. But that's cos I never got around to painting my room from when my baby siter used it.[/pointless lies];)

I've often come to the same conclusion.
But, Atheism is much more of a faith than doubt.
They believe there is no "God" ( which is often the case, not very multicultural, but who am I to judge ).

No, Atheism is, specifically, a lack of faith. A definitive belief there's no god would be something like anti-theism

I find atheists are really agnostics with too much pride.

You can have too much pride? :eek:

The only religion that I'm really screwed for is if the Muslims are right.

Actually, you're more screwed by Judaism because worship of Jesus breaks the First Commandment. Fortunately, though, there is no Hell in Judaism.

You're ok with Islam. Qu'ran says all "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians, Sabians) have a place in Paradise.

I'm agnostic because both sides have yet to prove they're right and the only way they get their point across is by screaming louder.

It's pretty arrogant to think you're right when it comes to religion.

Prove God doesn't exist, go on.

As soon I have evidence there's actually something to disprove. And even then, rather tough proving a negative.

No, Atheism is, specifically, a lack of faith. A definitive belief there's no god would be something like anti-theism
That would imply there is a truth that there are dieties or higher powers.
Which would need proof. Go ahead, proove it.

that there is no real point to life

There's always fan dancing.

I always thought agnostics were the sissies who didn't believe in a real religion, but were too afraid that they might be wrong to completely denounce the existance of a higher being. Ironically, you're fucked either way if God (or whatever) really exists.

As a Christian, I always (jokingly) say that I'm set. Of all the religions, I've got the best bet if mine is right. If I'm right, I go to heaven. If the Buddhists are right, I'm just set back a few steps - maybe I'll be reincarnated as a bug or something. If Mormons are right, I just get to chill in the 2nd or 3rd level of heaven. The list goes on. The only religion that I'm really screwed for is if the Muslims are right.

What if none of them are right and the actual true religion has not been encountered yet?

The congregation in theist churches are dis-interested too ;)

Yes, but they usually have the good grace to appear interested.

Actually, you're more screwed by Judaism because worship of Jesus breaks the First Commandment. Fortunately, though, there is no Hell in Judaism.

You're ok with Islam. Qu'ran says all "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians, Sabians) have a place in Paradise.

Oh really? Well then. I am rather set. Out of curiousity, what does Judaism say happens after death if I am theoretically breaking the First Commandment? Concerning Islam, Christians aren't nice enough to return the favor, so I'm safer on this side of the fence.

You can have too much pride? :eek:

Did I say pride? Shit ... I meant to say rice.

Because I am the antichrist.
And if there is an antichrist,
there must be a christ.

SO, unless the first one isn't true, I'm a believer.
and since the first one is just said by my friends,
I'm an atheist/agnostic

What if none of them are right and the actual true religion has not been encountered yet?

The gods lazy as F*ck

As soon I have evidence there's actually something to disprove. And even then, rather tough proving a negative.

That's why I'm agnostic.

Dont be so stupid!!!

we listen to the dark-pope deliver to a non-sermon to the INTERESTED congregation ;)
Unlike christians

Generally I find it pretty boring. I only really go for the annual baby BBQ.

That would imply there is a truth that there are dieties or higher powers.
Which would need proof. Go ahead, proove it.

What are you talking about? It doesn't impply anything, it's a lack of belief. That's it, you just don't actively have any beliefs on the matter of God or gods.

No, Atheism is, specifically, a lack of faith. A definitive belief there's no god would be something like anti-theism
a·the·ism
n.

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

Anti-theism would be disdain of or opposition to theism.

The gods lazy as F*ck

Rofl :D

Oh really? Well then. I am rather set. Out of curiousity, what does Judaism say happens after death if I am theoretically breaking the First Commandment?

It's a non-issue. Asking what happens to the soul when you die is like asking what happens to a dream when you wake up. The Jewish god is the God of the living. The dead bury their own. Judaism is concerned with life.

What if none of them are right and the actual true religion has not been encountered yet?

Then we're all screwed, and I'll see you all in whatever punishing version of the afterlife this undiscovered religion has waiting for us :D

Generally I find it pretty boring. I only really go for the annual baby BBQ.

Mmmmmm ... fresh baby.

What are you talking about? It doesn't impply anything, it's a lack of belief. That's it, you just don't actively have any beliefs on the matter of God or gods.
I'm saying that if an individual decides to be an atheist, they believe there is no God or gods.
What you are talking about is someone whose never considered the question, and has no opinion.

Because Atheism isn't a religion. Next question.

You could argue atheism isn't a religion, but that'd be just pointless hair-splitting. Whatever the dictionary definition of a 'religion' is, atheism is a belief system, the rejection of the supernational, that millions of people share.

I guess I'm technically an agnostic, because I'm not *sure*. But..well, I *believe* there is nothing supernatural in this universe, so I consider myself atheist. But, atheists need to start admitting they're making just as much of a leap of faith as any theist religion.

I don't *want* atheism to be true because it means when I'm dead I'm gone, but I'm having trouble believing otherwise because I feel like I'm just fooling myself into believing what I prefer to be true.

And responding to the original poster: I think you're wrong about not having to live up to a moral code. Atheists have moral codes, they just follow them because they believe it's right, not because they're worried about burning in hell.

Heck, I would argue most religious people nowadays just come up with their own moral codes based on what they believe is right, then say those are the morals of their religion. Which is why there are so many different factions of Christianity. Methodists, baptists, orthodox, the UCC, congregationalists. Members come up with the values they believe in, and then go to the church that agrees with them.

Generally I find it pretty boring. I only really go for the annual baby BBQ.

One of the many atheistic rituals that's always tempted me :D

Prove God doesn't exist, go on.

1. This post proves that God doesn't exist.

2. God wants us to believe in Him.

3. Therefore he wouldn't allow anyone to conclusively prove his non-existence.

4. Ergo, the fact that I'm able to make this post proves that God doesn't exist because if he did he would have stopped me.

QED. :p

Did I say pride? Shit ... I meant to say rice.

You have a point, look at the number of atheists in China.

1. This post proves that God doesn't exist.

2. God wants us to believe in Him.

3. Therefore he wouldn't allow anyone to conclusively prove his non-existence.

4. Ergo, the fact that I'm able to make this post proves that God doesn't exist because if he did he would have stopped me.

QED. :p

Free will :D

Prove God doesn't exist, go on.
Alright, so begins the disproval of the Jewish and Christian gods;

The bible says the world was created in 6 or 7 days and is no more than several thousand years. However it has been shown through fossil records etc, that the world was created over a very long time and is in fact billions of years old.

Evidence shows that jews were never enslaved by the Eygptians, thus they couldnt have had a historical moses to save them from such enslavement. If there was no moses than moses couldnt have seen god and help start writing the bible as the word of god. Since the bible was written by men, not god, it is nothing but a fairy tale.

Without the bible there is no edvince to suggest there is a god, other than a person wishing for or wanting for there to be a god.

Thus, there is no god and the bible and jesus were a fake.

Being agnostic, to me, is admitting that you can't know the unknowable. I'm not going to take someone elses word for it and there's no book that has ever proven His existance, so why fret about it?

1. This post proves that God doesn't exist.

2. God wants us to believe in Him.

3. Therefore he wouldn't allow anyone to conclusively prove his non-existence.

4. Ergo, the fact that I'm able to make this post proves that God doesn't exist because if he did he would have stopped me.

QED. :p
Wewt latin!

Evidence shows that jews were never enslaved by the Eygptians, thus they couldnt have had a historical moses to save them from such enslavement.

Well that ruins Passover.

Oh, can you link to this evidence? I'm interested.

You could argue atheism isn't a religion, but that'd be just pointless hair-splitting. Whatever the dictionary definition of a 'religion' is, atheism is a belief system, the rejection of the supernational, that millions of people share.

Strong Atheism = Belief in no god.

Weak Atheism = No belief in god.

Strong Atheism = Religion.

Weak Atheism =/= Religion.

ive always thought of agnostics as atheists in denial.
Strange. I've always thought of atheists as the ones in denial.

Wewt latin!
Ex tempore Latin at that.

Alright, so begins the disproval of the Jewish and Christian gods;

The bible says the world was created in 6 or 7 days and is no more than several thousand years. However it has been shown through fossil records etc, that the world was created over a very long time and is in fact billions of years old.



Actually, it's only fundamentalist Christians who believe this. The Bible never says "days" - it denotes the time passing by the rising and setting of the sun, which we take to mean literal 24 hour days. But many Christians, including myself, believe that it was only put into those terms so that we could understand that there were time periods in which God made certain things. God is outside our limited understanding of time.

Seriously, it's pointless to argue with Christians, as I find it pointless to try to dissuade atheists. I could answer everything with "God is beyond our realm of understanding," "free will," and "faith," just as you could demand that I prove that God exists.

Alright, so begins the disproval of the Jewish and Christian gods;

The bible says the world was created in 6 or 7 days and is no more than several thousand years. However it has been shown through fossil records etc, that the world was created over a very long time and is in fact billions of years old.

Evidence shows that jews were never enslaved by the Eygptians, thus they couldnt have had a historical moses to save them from such enslavement. If there was no moses than moses couldnt have seen god and help start writing the bible as the word of god. Since the bible was written by men, not god, it is nothing but a fairy tale.

Without the bible there is no edvince to suggest there is a god, other than a person wishing for or wanting for there to be a god.

Thus, there is no god and the bible and jesus were a fake.

Proves nothing in relation to god. No matter how wrong the bible is it there could still be a god. And a jesus. God's existance is not tied into the validity of the bible in any way.

Well that ruins Passover.

Oh, can you link to this evidence? I'm interested.
http://www.bandoli.no/moses.htm

http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/torah/moses.html

Alright, so begins the disproval of the Jewish and Christian gods;

The bible says the world was created in 6 or 7 days and is no more than several thousand years. However it has been shown through fossil records etc, that the world was created over a very long time and is in fact billions of years old.

Evidence shows that jews were never enslaved by the Eygptians, thus they couldnt have had a historical moses to save them from such enslavement. If there was no moses than moses couldnt have seen god and help start writing the bible as the word of god. Since the bible was written by men, not god, it is nothing but a fairy tale.

Without the bible there is no edvince to suggest there is a god, other than a person wishing for or wanting for there to be a god.

Thus, there is no god and the bible and jesus were a fake.

To be fair the Egyptians did have a nasty habit of destroying all records from the reigns of unpopular pharoahs. [/devil's advocate]

I find atheists are really agnostics with too much pride.
No such thing as an "agnostic". There are theists and atheists. It's binary. On/Off. 0/1. Have belief (theist)/Lack belief (atheist). No. Middle. Ground.

Strange. I've always thought of atheists as the ones in denial.
No, it's crocodiles you get in denial.

a·the·ism
n.
3. Godlessness; immorality.

Well, that's a liberal dictionary isn't it? :rolleyes:

Atheists think God is a figment of man's imagination,
when in fact, quite the opposite is true.

just as you could demand that I prove that God exists.

I would never ask anyone to prove that. I merely ask people to prove they believe. That's a lot tougher. You could be faking it.

Alright, so begins the disproval of the Jewish and Christian gods;

The bible says the world was created in 6 or 7 days and is no more than several thousand years. However it has been shown through fossil records etc, that the world was created over a very long time and is in fact billions of years old.

Evidence shows that jews were never enslaved by the Eygptians, thus they couldnt have had a historical moses to save them from such enslavement. If there was no moses than moses couldnt have seen god and help start writing the bible as the word of god. Since the bible was written by men, not god, it is nothing but a fairy tale.

Without the bible there is no edvince to suggest there is a god, other than a person wishing for or wanting for there to be a god.

Thus, there is no god and the bible and jesus were a fake.

I love you ::D

Ok now i'll handle the Pagan (including greek and roman) gods, apparently many of them lived in actual places on earth and wevve been to these places, there were no scantily clad people sitting on clouds.

Buddism+hinduism
Kind of difficult to counter, umm, i'll go for this way
Reincarnation rawr! cannot be right because the number of living things on earth has decreased and increased a hell of a lot over the years and isnt constant so MEH!

No, it's crocodiles you get in denial.

That was so bad I cackled.

I've often come to the same conclusion.
But, Atheism is much more of a faith than doubt.
They believe there is no "God"
No, atheists simply don't have the belief that there is a god. They don't have to believe that there isn't a god.

I'm saying that if an individual decides to be an atheist, they believe there is no God or gods.
What you are talking about is someone whose never considered the question, and has no opinion.

No. those who have "never considered the question" are Atheist, as are those who know about it, and just don't believe. A- Theos, without god. Atheism is a lack of belief. Those that believe there's no God are probably considered Atheist too.

a·the·ism
n.

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


And where did this come from?

atheism

1. the absence of belief in deities. (weak atheism)
2. the claim that no God or gods exist. (strong atheism)
3. the lack of theism (belief in a god or gods).

It varies.

No, it's crocodiles you get in denial.
For the first time, I am justified in using this: :headbang:

sure, I'll go find it

Groovy. Cuz if I don't have to deal with Passover ever again, so much the better. Too damn much work.

It's a way of life.

So is failing to spread catnip every fifteen feet and so that the space-cats don't send their giant invisible alien chickens to lay an egg on your house.

You don't have to do anything "special" to not follow a religion or not believe in a god.

I've often come to the same conclusion.
But, Atheism is much more of a faith than doubt.
They believe there is no "God" ( which is often the case, not very multicultural, but who am I to judge ).

Not doing is not the same as doing. Saying they "they believe there is no god" is a type of word play to make it sound like a non-believer has to do the same thing as a believer. Linguisitically (with a more concrete verb) it would be like saying "they walk not". Now, not walking is not the a type of locomotion.

Believing in one certain god (especially when the belief is accompanied by the fact that said diety is the only one and its rules and laws are the right way for everyone to live) is not exactly multi-cultural either. As long as everyone is okay with people following or not following certain customs (instead of thinking everyone should do things their way) then no problem - wether they believe or not.

Atheists think God is a figment of man's imagination,
when in fact, quite the opposite is true.

Bertrand Russell PWNs Bishop Berkeley biatch! :p

No such thing as an "agnostic". There are theists and atheists. It's binary. On/Off. 0/1. Have belief (theist)/Lack belief (atheist). No. Middle. Ground.
Em, no. Agnostics do not know whether there is a god or not and are reserving judgement.
And atheists aren't lacking in belief, we believe that there is no god/s.

You could argue atheism isn't a religion, but that'd be just pointless hair-splitting. Whatever the dictionary definition of a 'religion' is, atheism is a belief system,
Then baldness is a hair color and health is a disease.

So is failing to spread catnip every fifteen feet and so that the space-cats don't send their giant invisible alien chickens to lay an egg on your house.

FUCK! I knew I forgot to do something ....

Atheists think God is a figment of man's imagination,
when in fact, quite the opposite is true.

Terry pratchett?

I would never ask anyone to prove that. I merely ask people to prove they believe. That's a lot tougher. You could be faking it.

Actually, that's a rather valid point. I have a teacher who said that many Christians he knows are actually going to hell by definition of their own beliefs, because they don't understand what they "believe" in. Going to a big building and chilling for an hour every Sunday doesn't mean you believe in anything.

Ironically, I'm rather bitter towards my own religion.

Em, no.
Erm, yes.

Theism: the belief that there is a god or gods
Atheism: lacking the belief that there is a god or gods.

Agnosticism: lacking the belief that you have KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING.

Thus, we can see that agnosticism is ORTHOGONAL to both theism and atheism. It modifies them. But it cannot stand on its own.

btw, I'm an atheist. BAAWA = Bad Ass Atheists With Attitude. So I think I know a thing or three about atheism.

Em, no. Agnostics do not know whether there is a god or not and are reserving judgement.
And atheists aren't lacking in belief, we believe that there is no god/s.

No, Agnostics are literally 'without knowledge', they believe that we cannot know whether god exists or not. You can be an agnostic-theist (believe in god but don't believe it can be known for sure) or an agnostic atheist (don't believe in god but don't believe it can be known for sure).

Strictly speaking weak/implicit atheism is agnostic.

Technically, anybody who is rational isn't sure.

A completely rational person only believes what has been proven to him.

Despite people's claims, the existance of the supernatural can neither be proven or disproven.

Thus, any rational person wouldn't either be sure there's a god or sure there's none.

I believe there isn't one, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I'm *sure* there isn't.

Ironically, I'm rather bitter towards my own religion.

Then you are one of the good ones.

Terry pratchett?

Bishop Berkeley's Idealism I think.

Then baldness is a hair color and health is a disease.
No, atheism isn't a lack of a belief system. It isn't a religion, probably, but that isn't the point.

No such thing as an "agnostic". There are theists and atheists. It's binary. On/Off. 0/1. Have belief (theist)/Lack belief (atheist). No. Middle. Ground.

Okay, look, I'll make a simple chart for you people.


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/SimpleChart.png

Two distinct scales. Agnostic is not a middle ground between Theism and Atheism. One is believing or not, the other is can we know or not. Kay?

Technically, anybody who is rational isn't sure.

A completely rational person only believes what has been proven to him.

Despite people's claims, the existance of the supernatural can neither be proven or disproven.

Thus, any rational person wouldn't either be sure there's a god or sure there's none.

I believe there isn't one, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I'm *sure* there isn't.

That's like saying I don't believe in love, I believe in hormones. There are abstract, unproven ideas that people believe in. Then again, from a Christian standpoint, all I have to say is "faith" and I'm done with your argument :D It is a good point for being agnostic, though. Besides, being "completely rational" sounds rather boring.

No, atheism isn't a lack of a belief system.
*sigh*

Would it help if I broke the word down for you?

a-: privative prefix meaning "LACKING/WITHOUT"
theos: god/gods
-ism: suffix meaning "belief in"

theism: belief in (the existence of) god or gods
atheism: lacking/without the belief (in the existence of) god or gods.

No, atheism isn't a lack of a belief system. It isn't a religion, probably, but that isn't the point.

Yes it is. Maybe not for you, you might actively believe there's no god, but that's not the entirety of Atheism.

Okay, look, I'll make a simple chart for you people.


You should have made it a pie chart.

Mmmm ... pie.

*worships pie*

Terry pratchett?

i don't think so.

i heard Meic Pearse say it (professor, author, church historian),
i'm not where he got it from.

You should have made it a pie chart.

Mmmm ... pie.

*worships pie*

Does that make you pious?

You should have made it a pie chart.

Mmmm ... pie.

*worships pie*

Well, I would have had to subdivide the pie. *shrug*

Meh, i love snopes.

Even though its a story for the other team i find it amusing



This is a true story of something that happened just a few years ago at USC. There was a professor of philosophy there who was a deeply committed atheist. His primary goal for one required class was to spend the entire semester attempting to prove that God couldn't exist. His students were always afraid to argue with him because of his impeccable logic. For twenty years, he had taught this class and no one had ever had the courage to go against him. Sure, some had argued in class at times, but no one had ever 'really gone against him' (you'll see what I mean later).
Nobody would go against him because he had a reputation. At the end of every semester, on the last day, he would say to his class of 300 students, "If there anyone here who still believes in Jesus, stand up!" In twenty years, no one had ever stood up. They knew what he was going to do next. He would say, "because anyone who does believe in God is a fool. If God existed, he could stop this piece of chalk from hitting the ground and breaking. Such a simple task to prove that he is God, and yet he can't do it." And every year, he would drop the chalk onto the tile floor of the classroom and it would shatter into a hundred pieces. The students could do nothing but stop and stare. Most of the students were convinced that God couldn't exist. Certainly, a number of Christians had slipped through, but for 20 years, they had been too afraid to stand up.

Well, a few years ago, there was a freshman who happened to get enrolled in the class. He was a Christian, and had heard the stories about this professor. He had to take the class because it was one of the required classes for his major and he was afraid. But for 3 months that semester, he prayed every morning that he would have the courage to stand up no matter what the professor said or what the class thought. Nothing they said or did could ever shatter his faith, he hoped.

Finally the day came. The professor said, "If there is anyone here who still believes in God, stand up!" The professor and the class of 300 people looked at him, shocked, as he stood up at the back of the classroom. The professor shouted, "You FOOL!! If God existed, he could keep this piece of chalk from breaking when it hit the ground!" He proceeded to drop the chalk, but as he did, it slipped out of his fingers, off his shirt cuff, onto the pleats of his pants, down his leg, and off his shoe. As it hit the ground, it simply rolled away, unbroken.

The professor's jaw dropped as he stared at the chalk. He looked up at the young man and then ran out of the lecture hall. The young man who had stood up proceeded to walk to the front of the room and share his faith in Jesus for the next half hour. 300 students stayed and listened as he told of God's love for them and of his power through Jesus









ALSO albert einstein


Does evil exist?

The university professor challenged his students with this question. Did God create everything that exists? A student bravely replied, "Yes, he did!"

"God created everything? The professor asked.

"Yes sir", the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything, then God created evil since evil exists, and according to the principal that our works define who we are then God is evil". The student became quiet before such an answer. The professor was quite pleased with himself and boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "Can I ask you a question professor?"

"Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?" The students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 degrees F) is the total absence of heat; all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."

The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course as I have already said. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is not like faith, or love that exist just as does light and heat. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name — Albert Einstein.

Does that make you pious?
*Groan*

But quite a clever groan. :p

Does that make you pious?

BUHAHAHA! You just made me spew tea. That's awesome. I'm gonna use that.

Erm, yes.

Theism: the belief that there is a god or gods
Atheism: lacking the belief that there is a god or gods.

Agnosticism: lacking the belief that you have KNOWLEDGE OF SOMETHING.

Thus, we can see that agnosticism is ORTHOGONAL to both theism and atheism. It modifies them. But it cannot stand on its own.

btw, I'm an atheist. BAAWA = Bad Ass Atheists With Attitude. So I think I know a thing or three about atheism.

Well neither of us are ever going to conced the other is right, so I'm not going to try. I would say that atheism is a belief that there is no god, you would say it's a lack of belief. This arguement is right up there with how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
And I agree, agnosticism is a qualification to theist or atheist. Anyone claiming to be soley agnostic is probably an atheist.

Meh, i love snopes.

Even though its a story for the other team i find it amusing
You must also think Jim Carrey is the height of comedy if you think those stories are amusing.

No such thing as an "agnostic". There are theists and atheists. It's binary. On/Off. 0/1. Have belief (theist)/Lack belief (atheist). No. Middle. Ground.

agnostic means "without knowing"
a child does neither believe in God nor deny Her existance, a child simply does not know.
agnostics are, metaphorically speaking, spiritual children.

Alright, so begins the disproval of the Jewish and Christian gods;

The bible says the world was created in 6 or 7 days and is no more than several thousand years. However it has been shown through fossil records etc, that the world was created over a very long time and is in fact billions of years old.

Evidence shows that jews were never enslaved by the Eygptians, thus they couldnt have had a historical moses to save them from such enslavement. If there was no moses than moses couldnt have seen god and help start writing the bible as the word of god. Since the bible was written by men, not god, it is nothing but a fairy tale.

Without the bible there is no edvince to suggest there is a god, other than a person wishing for or wanting for there to be a god.

Thus, there is no god and the bible and jesus were a fake.

Okay, you've just shown that aspects of the bible were untrue - assuming that it means that all of it is untrue, so does not prove that God does not exist. If the entire bible (the only hard evidence of God) is discounted, that leaves no evidence for God, but there is also no evidence that God cannot exist. Even if Yahweh is proven to be make-believe, that does not rule out a supreme being.

FUCK! I knew I forgot to do something ....

Meh... wait a couple of days. This time of year you could get the jellybean eggs.

Well neither of us are ever going to conced the other is right,
What a lovely cop-out.

I know that I'm correct because I broke it down for you. You can either stay ignorant or accept reality.

No. those who have "never considered the question" are Atheist, as are those who know about it, and just don't believe. ... Atheism is a lack of belief. Those that believe there's no God are probably considered Atheist too.
As always, the Chruch has been before you.

n. ... Gentile The bold is to be noted.
1. One who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation.
2. A Christian.
3. Archaic. A pagan or heathen.
4. Mormon Church. A non-Mormon

n. ... pagan Focus on the bold.
1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.

n. ... heathen Most attention should be paid to the bold.
1. A. One who adheres to the religion of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
B. Such persons considered as a group; the unconverted.
2. A. One who is regarded as irreligious, uncivilized, or unenlightened.
B. Such persons considered as a group

Definitions from here: The source (http://dictionary.reference.com/).

Someone could be called that, but in my evangical schooling, we don't label people who have not been exposed to the idea of a higher power, or lack thereof, as Atheists. That requires some foreknowledge of the concept of Theism to be against it. The people who have no opinion, as in irreligious or the unconverted, are correctly labeled as Gentiles and heathens. Only thing is, those words have heavy emotional baggage with them these days. Not to mention, words are hard.

agnostic means "without knowing"
Knowing WHAT?

You must QUALIFY it.

That means it must MODIFY something.

That means it can't be by itself.

agnostic means "without knowing"
a child does neither believe in God nor deny Her existance, a child simply does not know.
agnostics are, metaphorically speaking, spiritual children.

Actually, considering they don't believe anything, would fit better with the term atheist than most here.

*sigh*

Would it help if I broke the word down for you?

a-: privative prefix meaning "LACKING/WITHOUT"
theos: god/gods
-ism: suffix meaning "belief in"

theism: belief in (the existence of) god or gods
atheism: lacking/without the belief (in the existence of) god or gods.
Do you think the definition of the word is all there is to atheism?

Yes I am aware of how stupid that statement makes me look considering I was the one who started all this dictionary crap. But you're internet people and I couldn't care less what you think about me :)

Do you think the definition of the word is all there is to atheism?
Yes.

without the bible what sort of evidence could there possibily be for any sort of god?

Um, the Bible isn't required to argue for any non-abrahamic god.

Do you think the definition of the word is all there is to atheism?

Is there something else involved? An unknown, intangible higher being?

:p

Someone could be called that, but in my evangical schooling, we don't label people who have not been exposed to the idea of a higher power, or lack thereof, as Atheists. That requires some foreknowledge of the concept of Theism to be against it. The people who have no opinion, as in irreligious or the unconverted, are correctly labeled as Gentiles and heathens. Only thing is, those words have heavy emotional baggage with them these days. Not to mention, words are hard.

No. Atheism requires no for knowledge. They can be heathen atheists if you want, but lacking belief, or being without belief (hence the a- prefix in the word) is Atheism. So whether or not you label them that, it's what they are. A- as in, lacking, or without.

without the bible what sort of evidence could there possibily be for any sort of god?

The whole idea behind (most/some) religions is faith. And as lacking in logic as you may think that makes someone, faith is what keeps a person believing in something when they have no reason to believe. If you're religious, you can see your deity's work in every day life. What agnostics or atheists may attribute to luck or coincedence, I would say God did.

Is there something else involved? An unknown, intangible higher being?

:p

Yep, here's a proper definition: linky (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Atheism) :D

Groovy. Cuz if I don't have to deal with Passover ever again, so much the better. Too damn much work.
I posted them in the post where I said Id find it. I admit it may not the best stuff but I did what I could given time constraints and and just using google, but I hope you get the idea. If I was able to search through books and journals I could pull up a lot better stuff.

Do you think the definition of the word is all there is to atheism?

Pretty much. It's specifically a lack of belief, and can also encompass an active belief against.

Strange. I've always thought of atheists as the ones in denial.
denial of WHAT?

i also think that those who claim to believe in "god" but never go to church or do anything religious are equally atheists in denial. if they truly believed they would have to do something about it.

interestingly i dont claim that my belief is correct.

without the bible what sort of evidence could there possibily be for any sort of god?

existance

Atheists believe in god, but not god. The former is real, the latter is just a silly, little pixie.

Um, the Bible isn't required to argue for any non-abrahamic god.
Believe me I know, but I wanted to use the most common god refered to in our western society. I could disprove all other gods, however this would take far more time and resources than I have.

If atheism is the "belief in nothing," isn't that a massive oxymoron? You can not believe that something exists, and you can prove that something (or someone) doesn't exist, but what it all comes down to is that atheists don't believe in anything. Religiously, at least.

without the bible what sort of evidence could there possibily be for any sort of god?

No eveidence does not mean "does not exist". A thousand years ago it could be said that there are no planets outside of our solar system because there was no evidence, now over 100 have been found through methods such measuring the wobble of stars on their axis. You cannot say what is and what is not beyond the horizon.

Atheists believe in god, but not god. The former is real, the latter is just a silly, little pixie.

*head explodes*

Is there something else involved? An unknown, intangible higher being?

:p

I really am doing badly in this whole debating jiggery pokery today. :(

Not doing is not the same as doing. Saying they "they believe there is no god" is a type of word play to make it sound like a non-believer has to do the same thing as a believer. Linguisitically (with a more concrete verb) it would be like saying "they walk not". Now, not walking is not the a type of locomotion.
"They walk not" is poor grammar, sounds like you thought of it in Swedish and translated it directly. Now if we said, "they do not believe" and "they are not walking" that'd work out better, but then your point is lost.

"They walk not" is also an interesting way to call out my word play. How about those folks sitting in a plane or train? Not to mention, if we're going to get nitty gritty, the Earth is moving around the sun at 18.55 miles per secund. Conviently, the Milky Way is also moving.
Believing in one certain god (especially when the belief is accompanied by the fact that said diety is the only one and its rules and laws are the right way for everyone to live) is not exactly multi-cultural either. As long as everyone is okay with people following or not following certain customs (instead of thinking everyone should do things their way) then no problem - wether they believe or not.
I don't see the relevance of this. I'm merely saying that most Atheists deny the existence of God, which is the Judeo-Christian god. Thus, not multi-cultural. Certainly, its more than one, but Judaism and Christianty are so closely related one cannot really consider Christianity without considerding Judaism.

Believe me I know, but I wanted to use the most common god refered to in our western society. I could disprove all other gods, however this would take far more time and resources than I have.

can you or can't you?

that's the problem with you atheists, you're unreliable.

*head explodes*
Think about it.

existance
Do you mean that existence itself is evidence of god?

If so, do you think you could be a little less stupid and not beg the question?

If not, then what precisely do you mean?

No eveidence does not mean "does not exist". A thousand years ago it could be said that there are no planets outside of our solar system because there was no evidence, now over 100 have been found through methods such measuring the wobble of stars on their axis. You cannot say what is and what is not beyond the horizon.

True, but no evidence should mean "no reason to believe it exists". Just as I'm sure you don't believe in Santa, but can you prove it?

can you or can't you?

that's the problem with you atheists, you're unreliable.
That's the problems with you theists, your impatient.

If atheism is the "belief in nothing,"
It's not. That's NIHILISM.

I really am doing badly in this whole debating jiggery pokery today. :(

Don't bother. Just have fun. :D

that's the problem with you atheists, you're unreliable.

Careful not to generalise...

They can be heathen atheists if you want, but lacking belief, or being without belief (hence the a- prefix in the word) is Atheism.
You seem to be forgetting that there are also other terms for the same concept. You are correct, but you are not revealing the entire picture.

No eveidence does not mean "does not exist". A thousand years ago it could be said that there are no planets outside of our solar system because there was no evidence, now over 100 have been found through methods such measuring the wobble of stars on their axis. You cannot say what is and what is not beyond the horizon.
disregard that post of mine. however using that logically I can say that invisible pink flying horses in outer space control our every move. Theres not absolute evidence to say they dont exsist. However, most logical, reasonable people will choose not to believe that since there is strong reasonable doubt against that position.

Atheists believe in god, but not god. The former is real, the latter is just a silly, little pixie.
Surely that requires a capitalisation of the second 'God' to make sense?

Don't bother. Just have fun. :D
Sounds good to me!:fluffle:

You seem to be forgetting that there are also other terms for the same concept. You are correct, but you are not revealing the entire picture.
What "entire picture"?

You seem to be forgetting that there are also other terms for the same concept. You are correct, but you are not revealing the entire picture.

...Huh? Sure, lots of things have multiple words we can adress them with. Would you like that they be refered to as gentile pagan heathen atheists, or can we make it easy?

Actually, considering they don't believe anything, would fit better with the term atheist than most here.

yes, you could also say that a child is an atheist, since they do not believe in God, but they also do not not believe in God.

that is why agnostic is a better term for them

Im allowed to generalise about nearly everyone ::D i have blood from all corners of the world (no african blood tho, damn! i cant say the N word.)

And noone would harass a jew for saying us guys are tight fisted.
Im allowed to say it :D it rocks on behalf of all the communities i hail from i grant you amnesty for any racist or prejudicial thoughts you ever had!
MWAHHA!


Yeh atheists Are unreliable to be honest, were always too busy living hedonistic lifestyles
Anal sex, abortions, drugs ectect
haha no.

Surely that requires a capitalisation of the second 'God' to make sense?
Not at all. That would just make it confusing and illogical.

Sometimes atheists can be even more annoying than Christian Fundamentalists. And Christian Fundamentalists are crazy.

Careful not to generalise...
what else can you do? argue on a case by case basis?

yes, you could also say that a child is an atheist, since they do not believe in God, but they also do not not believe in God.

that is why agnostic is a better term for them
Wrong. As long as someone does not have the belief that there is a god, that person is an atheist.

There. Is. No. Third. Option.
There. Is. No. Middle. Ground.

yes, you could also say that a child is an atheist, since they do not believe in God, but they also do not not believe in God.

that is why agnostic is a better term for them

Not really, considering agnostic involves thinking we can't really know one way or the other, and I doubt children think that. Agnostic is not the middle ground, don't make me get the chart.

...I could disprove all other gods, however this would take far more time and resources than I have.

That is massively arrogant. You say you "could" disprove every known religion, except you don't have the resources or the arguments at hand. Meaning, you can't disprove all other gods, but you're pretty sure you're smart/amazing enough to do so...if you felt like it.

Wow! We need to set you free on the talk show circuit. Give you a question and you come up with a short, one sentence answer.

Let's see...
Who would win a fight - Buddha or Fidel Castro?


Castro.

what else can you do? argue on a case by case basis?
You can do that, but it would take a while.

Generalizations can be harmful. Look at racism or pop culture.

True, but no evidence should mean "no reason to believe it exists". Just as I'm sure you don't believe in Santa, but can you prove it?

Without evidence, and looking at the ridiculous claims, I can say that the existence of Santa is incredibly incredibly unlikely, but (okay this is going to sound crazy :D) is impossible to disprove (we could all recieve presents then have our memories erased :p). I think that it's so unlikely that I may as well not believe in him, but I can't rule anything out completely.

Wow, only on NS could a thread reach ten pages wihout agreement being reached on a definition of the debate topic. :)

You can do that, but it would take a while.

Generalizations can be harmful. Look at racism or pop culture.
And they can be helpful as well. Generalizing, humans prefer more of a thing (that they desire) than less, all other things being equal.

Now that generalization harms none.

Without evidence, and looking at the ridiculous claims, I can say that the existence of Santa is incredibly incredibly unlikely, but (okay this is going to sound crazy :D) is impossible to disprove (we could all recieve presents then have our memories erased :p). I think that it's so unlikely that I may as well not believe in him, but I can't rule anything out completely.

Behold. The reasoning of most Atheists.

Wow, only on NS could a thread reach ten pages wihout agreement being reached on a definition of the debate topic. :)

It's worse than Congress around here sometimes.

can you or can't you?

that's the problem with you atheists, you're unreliable.
I can, my point that I dont have the time to gather all the arguments and evidence I would need for the purpose of the forum.

If anyone is unreliable its god. I cant tell you the amount of times I've prayed for a bus full of hot blonde bisexual cheerleaders to break down in front of my house and them needing a place to get comfortable and cool down;)
Not once did he answer my prayers:( lousy bastard

Wrong. As long as someone does not have the belief that there is a god, that person is an atheist.

There. Is. No. Third. Option.
There. Is. No. Middle. Ground.

why are you bent on polarizing the two? why must it be black and white? why the false dilemma?

you say that someone might either claim to believe in God or not, what can't someone be unsure

And they can be helpful as well. Generalizing, humans prefer more of a thing (that they desire) than less, all other things being equal.

Now that generalization harms none.

Darn, Stupid sidenote in parenthesis. I was gonna say cyanide.

It's worse than Congress around here sometimes.

What's that quote? "If pro is the opposite of con then is congress the opposite of congress?"

It's worse than Congress around here sometimes.
i resent that.

i try damn hard to make it worse than Congress most times.

Wow, only on NS could a thread reach ten pages wihout agreement being reached on a definition of the debate topic. :)

Haha, I'm sure it's only going to get longer. It's an interesting debate, and both sides have their logic. And no one's going to be switching sides any time soon, seeing as everyone is positive that their logic is correct. It's one of those things where you have to "agree to disagree," but then everyone thinks you're too sissy to defend your beliefs. It's more fun to debate, anyway.

And they can be helpful as well. Generalizing, humans prefer more of a thing (that they desire) than less, all other things being equal.

Now that generalization harms none.
Aye, but the matrix isn't real.

why are you bent on polarizing the two? why must it be black and white? why the false dilemma?

you say that someone might either claim to believe in God or not, what can't someone be unsure

Actually, it's red and blue (no political connotations intended.)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/SimpleChart.png

I can, my point that I dont have the time to gather all the arguments and evidence I would need for the purpose of the forum.

If anyone is unreliable its god. I cant tell you the amount of times I've prayed for a bus full of hot blonde bisexual cheerleaders to break down in front of my house and them needing a place to get comfortable and cool down;)
Not once did he answer my prayers:( lousy bastard

Sorry, there's a strictly finite number of buses full of hot blond bisexual teenagers and apparently I've been praying more piously than you.

I can, my point that I dont have the time to gather all the arguments and evidence I would need for the purpose of the forum.

If anyone is unreliable its god. I cant tell you the amount of times I've prayed for a bus full of hot blonde bisexual cheerleaders to break down in front of my house and them needing a place to get comfortable and cool down;)
Not once did he answer my prayers:( lousy bastard

The Bible also talks about praying unselfishly :P Of course, I'm sure you had only those poor cheerleaders' comfort in mind.

What "entire picture"?
Merely another portion of the story (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10765682&postcount=107).
Would you like that they be refered to as gentile pagan heathen atheists, or can we make it easy?
I never suggested making things hard. I merely would like people to know that there are other terms to be used for "Atheism" which is, by definition, lack of religion. "Atheism" can imply faith, faith in that there is no diety. Faith can exist without religion. Pagans, ones who can have no religion, must not always be Athesits. Heathens, the possibly irreligious, must not always be Atheists. Sometimes terms work, sometimes they don't.

why are you bent on polarizing the two?
Because that's all there is.

Tell me: is there some middle between having something and not having something?

NO!

That's why it's polarized. That's why it's binary. You can't be in the middle of having or lacking. There. Is. No. Middle.


you say that someone might either claim to believe in God or not, what can't someone be unsure
They can be, but they won't be in some 3rd option. They will be atheist or theist.

Actually, it's red and blue (no political connotations intended.)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/SimpleChart.png

this is the second time i have seen your chart, thank you.

Tell me: is there some middle between having something and not having something?

NO!
Yes...

...having a bit of something.

this is the second time i have seen your chart, thank you.

3rd, thanks to your sarcastic and ultimately unhelpful commentary :D

Merely another portion of the story (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10765682&postcount=107).
Ummm....no.


I never suggested making things hard. I merely would like people to know that there are other terms to be used for "Atheism" which is, by definition, lack of religion.
No. It's a lack of belief. There are many atheists who, like me, are members of the Church of the Subgenius (PRABOB!)

Not really, considering agnostic involves thinking we can't really know one way or the other, and I doubt children think that. Agnostic is not the middle ground, don't make me get the chart.
In a way agnostic is the middle ground. In your graph the people close to the dividing line between atheism and theism would most likely be agnostic a/theists.

Wow, only on NS could a thread reach ten pages wihout agreement being reached on a definition of the debate topic. :)
a definitive debate topic is what guarantees that a thread will never reach ten pages.

Yes...

...having a bit of something.
Then you have something.

Where's the middle?

Then you have something.

Where's the middle?
No, I have part of that something.

This case is only polarised because you have set your own terms of reference to be that way.

"Atheism" which is, by definition, lack of religion. "Atheism" can imply faith, faith in that there is no diety. Faith can exist without religion.

Mostly fine...except...Atheism is, by definition: "Lack of or without (A-) belief in (-ism) god (theos)". Kay?

Faith can exist without religion.
My quote of the day is "I believe in Science."

No, I have part of that something.
No, you have something. Part or not: You. Have. Something.

Now where's the middle?

disregard that post of mine. however using that logically I can say that invisible pink flying horses in outer space control our every move. Theres not absolute evidence to say they dont exsist. However, most logical, reasonable people will choose not to believe that since there is strong reasonable doubt against that position.

I used to have the very same idea on things, but with this case maybe invisible pink flying horses in outer space (don't see how something can be invisible and pink :p) do exist - we don't know, but it's just so absurd and unlikely that I can disregard, but I can't rule it out - no matter how crazy it seems.
I can imagine 1000s of years ago a caveman saying "Maybe the Earth's like a ball", and another replying "don't be such a stupid f***wit and have look around!".

Sorry, there's a strictly finite number of buses full of hot blond bisexual teenagers and apparently I've been praying more piously than you.
lmao. damn you for stealing those buses:p

No. It's a lack of belief. There are many atheists who, like me, are members of the Church of the Subgenius (PRABOB!)
I'm not willing to play with syntax (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=belief) all night. I've done enough of that.

In a way agnostic is the middle ground. In your graph the people close to the dividing line between atheism and theism would most likely be agnostic a/theists.

Well, that's just the 2-d representation. Really, I'd prefer a cyclinder of two rings on on top of the other, basically wrap the bars around and connectg them. *shrug* Whatever.

Mostly fine...except...Atheism is, by definition: "Lack of or without (A-) belief in (-ism) god (theos)". Kay?
in greek, theie is also uncle. so atheism could be not having an uncle.

The Bible also talks about praying unselfishly :P Of course, I'm sure you had only those poor cheerleaders' comfort in mind.
of course, Im a nice guy:p

I'm not willing to play with syntax (http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=belief) all night. I've done enough of that.
That's fine, but the fact remains that atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.

No, you have something. Part or not: You. Have. Something.

Now where's the middle?
Well, quite; I believe you have just proved the second (unquoted) part of my statement.

If I have a chunk of an apple I do not have 'an apple'; you are claiming that because I have something I have the whole.

a definitive debate topic is what guarantees that a thread will never reach ten pages.

Disturbingly I think you may be right.

No, you have something. Part or not: You. Have. Something.

Now where's the middle?

What is with your doggedness on this? "Having" something isn't exactly applicable to religion and atheism. You can believe in something. You can not believe in something. And you can not be sure enough to believe or completely denounce it.

There's. Your. Middle. you nutcase.

Behold. The reasoning of most Atheists.

:confused: Are you sure you meant Athiests?

lmao. damn you for stealing those buses:p

Stealing them? No, I was merely holier, holier than thou!

Gotta go, another bus just pulled up. :fluffle:

Well, quite; I believe you have just proved the second (unquoted) part of my statement.
No. Whether or not you have a whole of something doesn't matter; that you have something does. You are the one using some strange definition of "something" by making "something" mean ONLY "that which is whole".

Ummm....no.



No. It's a lack of belief. There are many atheists who, like me, are members of the Church of the Subgenius (PRABOB!)
Is the Church of the Subgenius a parody religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism or the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

What is with your doggedness on this? "Having" something isn't exactly applicable to religion and atheism. You can believe in something. You can not believe in something. And you can not be sure enough to believe or completely denounce it.

There's. Your. Middle. you nutcase.

If you're not sure enough to believe anything, that's atheism. It's not denouncing, simply not believing.

Is the Church of the Subgenius a parody religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism of the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
It's the original parody religion. Begun in 1981, it's grown and has quite a few superstar members, such at Matt Groening and Mark Mothersbaugh.

No. Whether or not you have a whole of something doesn't matter; that you have something does. You are the one using some strange definition of "something" by making "something" mean ONLY "that which is whole".
Actually, this is what you are doing. You are claiming that you either have the whole (which you define as 'something'), or you have nothing. This is absurd.

What is with your doggedness on this?
Oh, I dunno: reality.


"Having" something isn't exactly applicable to religion and atheism.
Yes, it is. Either you have the belief or you do not.

Where. Is. The. Middle?

Is the Church of the Subgenius a parody religion like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism or the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
you forgot the Worship of His Norrisness.

:confused: Are you sure you meant Athiests?

Yes, you find no reason you should believe in Santa, but you aren't comfortable saying it's absolutely not true, it's just reasonable not to believe, because it's improbably and relatively unsupported. and I meant Atheists.

My quote of the day is "I believe in Science."
That's libel. I've never uttered that in my life, let alone written it down. Not to mention Science (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science), as you've written it, means Christian Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science).

Actually, this is what you are doing.
Actually, it's not.

Now then, if you wish to continue this discussion, I must ask you to stop lying.

Actually, this is what you are doing. You are claiming that you either have the whole (which you define as 'something'), or you have nothing. This is absurd.

If you have part of something, it's still something, just less of it.

in greek, theie is also uncle. so atheism could be not having an uncle.

Sweet, somebody get this man/woman/whatever a cookie!

What is with your doggedness on this? "Having" something isn't exactly applicable to religion and atheism. You can believe in something. You can not believe in something. And you can not be sure enough to believe or completely denounce it.

There's. Your. Middle. you nutcase.

you either believe in something or not (whether or not it is true). if you are unsure of belief, that is still not believing. until you believe, you are one without belief.

If you're not sure enough to believe anything, that's atheism. It's not denouncing, simply not believing.

Dictionary definitions aside, in real world application, atheists say that there is no higher being. The agnostics I know say that they believe in some sort of higher being, but not in any organized religion. There is a difference, and there lies your middle ground.

"They walk not" is poor grammar, sounds like you thought of it in Swedish and translated it directly. Now if we said, "they do not believe" and "they are not walking" that'd work out better, but then your point is lost.

"They walk not" is also an interesting way to call out my word play. How about those folks sitting in a plane or train? Not to mention, if we're going to get nitty gritty, the Earth is moving around the sun at 18.55 miles per secund. Conviently, the Milky Way is also moving.

The point is when you change the "not believe" in to "believe in no [object]" then you change what the negative (ie word no or not) is modifying. Linguistically, not believing is different from believing in nothing. Thus not a belief. Whereas walking not (which is an archaic usage, much like holp as the past tense of help) and not walking are the exact same action (whether or not one is being conveyed by other forms of transportation).


I don't see the relevance of this. I'm merely saying that most Atheists deny the existence of God, which is the Judeo-Christian god. Thus, not multi-cultural. Certainly, its more than one, but Judaism and Christianty are so closely related one cannot really consider Christianity without considerding Judaism.

The point is that Judeo-Christians deny the existance AND THE VALIDITY of any and every other god, religion, or non-theisitic religion or philosophy. Thus even less multi-cultural.

you forgot the Worship of His Norrisness.

Norrism is NOT a parody foul heretic!!!

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the roundhouse kick.

Book of Norris, 57:3

Actually, it's not.

Now then, if you wish to continue this discussion, I must ask you to stop lying.
Lying?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10765830&postcount=168

It's hard to claim you didn't say something when the forum records everything, I'm afraid.

Dictionary definitions aside, in real world application, atheists say that there is no higher being. The agnostics I know say that they believe in some sort of higher being, but not in any organized religion. There is a difference, and there lies your middle ground.

Your atheists are gnostic Atheists. Your agnostics are agnostics Theist. Seriously, don't make me post it again, agnostic is not a middle grouns, it's on a different scale.

That's libel. I've never uttered that in my life, let alone written it down. Not to mention Science (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science), as you've written it, means Christian Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science).
lol i'm not quoting you, i'm reiterating from another thread, where we've had this discussion today. ish. and i can damn well capitalise anything I want. Christian science indeed. sheesh.

you forgot the Worship of His Norrisness.

HOW DARE YOU!!! There is no parody in our worship of The Almighty Norris!! The Unforgiving Chuck'thulu shall smite you with His Boot Of Oblivion for such blasphemy!

Yes, you find no reason you should believe in Santa, but you aren't comfortable saying it's absolutely not true, it's just reasonable not to believe, because it's improbably and relatively unsupported.

You just phrased that perfectly! :fluffle:

and I meant Atheists.

Or agnostics?

Lying?
Yes. You lied when you said that I claim that you either have the whole or nothing.

Now then, either stop lying or stop posting to me. Pretty simple.

we have reached the point (a long time ago) of connotation vs denotation.

the strict denotation of atheism leaves no middle room

the connotation leaves a lot of middle room

you all are (as i was) arguing two different things

Norrism is NOT a parody foul heretic!!!

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the roundhouse kick.

Book of Norris, 57:3

HOW DARE YOU!!! There is no parody in our worship of The Almighty Norris!! The Unforgiving Chuck'thulu shall smite you with His Boot Of Oblivion for such blasphemy!

Great minds think alike. ;)

Mostly fine...except...Atheism is, by definition: "Lack of or without (A-) belief in (-ism) god (theos)". Kay?
That's fine, but the fact remains that atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods.
Yes, we've had the established from the get go. Remember: Syntax ( and typos ). :p
Oh, wait, I thought I was done and could go and play cards.

Yes. You lied when you said that I claim that you either have the whole or nothing.

Now then, either stop lying or stop posting to me. Pretty simple.
:rolleyes:


Tell me: is there some middle between having something and not having something?

Your atheists are gnostic Atheists. Your agnostics are agnostics Theist. Seriously, don't make me post it again, agnostic is not a middle grouns, it's on a different scale.

Seriously, don't reprimand me as if I were a child simply because I don't agree with your scales. It's funny how hard it is to "convince" me using your logic when I don't believe in your logic.

we have reached the point (a long time ago) of connotation vs denotation.

the strict denotation of atheism leaves no middle room

the connotation leaves a lot of middle room
The connotation is wrong.

A lot of people have the connotation of atheism being communism or satanism. Those are wrong, too.

Or agnostics?

Agnostic Atheists maybe. If they weren't Atheist (and thus, Theist) they'd feel uncomfortable saying it for sure, but believe anyways. Agnostic Theist.

:rolleyes:
And your quote of me doesn't prove that I said that you either have the whole or nothing. Try again, liar.

Great minds think alike. ;)
Yes, and great minds accept Chuck Norris as their personal exocutioner.:fluffle:

Seriously, don't reprimand me as if I were a child simply because I don't agree with your scales. It's funny how hard it is to "convince" me using your logic when I don't believe in your logic.

What, if you don't like what the words mean, fine. Just don't mislead with the definitions you use.

in greek, theie is also uncle. so atheism could be not having an uncle.
o

i have lots of uncles

o

*goes off to reconsider her entire belief system*

And your quote of me doesn't prove that I said that you either have the whole or nothing. Try again, liar.
You're quite funny in your inability to see what you're saying yourself. :p
That's why it's polarized. That's why it's binary. You can't be in the middle of having or lacking. There. Is. No. Middle.

The connotation is wrong.

A lot of people have the connotation of atheism being communism or satanism. Those are wrong, too.

Agreed, in the same way that technically (according to Christianity), anything that isn't Christianity is Satanism.

You're quite funny in your inability to see what you're saying yourself. :p
You're quite funny in that you see things that aren't there.

Now either admit you're wrong or stop posting to me.

You're quite funny in your inability to see what you're saying yourself. :p

He never said whole. There is no spot between something and nothing.

Great minds think alike. ;)
nay, for verily I say unto you, Mr. T pities Chuck Norris.

And your quote of me doesn't prove that I said that you either have the whole or nothing. Try again, liar.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but you care about this far far too much. Congratulations on being the first crazy 'fundie' atheist I have ever encountered.

The connotation is wrong.

A lot of people have the connotation of atheism being communism or satanism. Those are wrong, too.

we live in a world where people think in connotations, not denotations

(satanism is the worship of the self, not satan; but how many people know that?)

I hate to be the one to tell you, but you care about this far far too much.
Yeah--I care about being lied about far too much.

Damn me for not liking people lying about me!

What, if you don't like what the words mean, fine. Just don't mislead with the definitions you use.

I'm not denying what the words mean. Sometimes, life differs from the strict, literal meaning of words. I use "atheist" and "agnostic" in the context of common usage. They may be slightly wrong, but it makes them a lot more applicable.

we live in a world where people think in connotations, not denotations
I think in denotations. If others think in connotations, I correct them.

nay, for verily I say unto you, Mr. T pities Chuck Norris.

Indeed, and in a way we all pity Chuck Norris. For all the power seems like a terrible burden to us mere mortals. But to Chuck Norris it is no more a burden than His Holy Beard.

Well, it's nearly eleven o'clock and I want to get my history essay finished tonight so I'm going to stop lurking this thread.

'Night all, happy Easter/Pagan Fertility Festival for tomorrow. :)

Agreed, in the same way that technically (according to Christianity), anything that isn't Christianity is Satanism.

that is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard

He never said whole. There is no spot between something and nothing.
Indeed, bringing us right round in a circle to my original point; that he is setting his own terms of reference, and then refusing to accept anything outside of these terms.

He is saying "you either have something or you do not". I am saying that it is possible to have something, but not have the complete something. In other words, rather than having either 10 or 0, you have 1 through to nine.

I'm not denying what the words mean. Sometimes, life differs from the strict, literal meaning of words. I use "atheist" and "agnostic" in the context of common usage. They may be slightly wrong, but it makes them a lot more applicable.

Sure, that's fine day to day, but when you begin to work with logic and debate, best to correctly use words so as not to leave room for discrepancies. Like, If you're going to talk with a Brit about food, you'd better figure out what a "chip" is, what a "fry" is and what a "crisp" is.

Indeed, bringing us right round in a circle to my original point; that he is setting his own terms of reference, and then refusing to accept anything outside of these terms.
That's because anything outside of those terms is wrong.

Something exists or it doesn't. That's the way things are.


He is saying "you either have something or you do not". I am saying that it is possible to have something, but not have the complete something.
Then you're changing the definition of "something" to mean ONLY "the whole".

Just as I said you were doing.

that is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard

I told my theology teacher the same thing. The wonderful thing about online classes is that they can't censor you, since they don't know how to delete posts - I proceeded to make an entire argument about how their definition of Satanism made me a Satanist (including absurdities like burning incense and playing D&D can lead you down the road to darkness). Chaos ensued. The campus pastor actually talked to me, and when I mentioned mutiny, he paled :D

(edit: for typos)

Indeed, and in a way we all pity Chuck Norris. For all the power seems like a terrible burden to us mere mortals. But to Chuck Norris it is no more a burden than His Holy Beard.
I accept that Norris may exist, for I cannot prove otherwise. But I do not believe in Him. I am agnorris.

Indeed, bringing us right round in a circle to my original point; that he is setting his own terms of reference, and then refusing to accept anything outside of these terms.

He is saying "you either have something or you do not". I am saying that it is possible to have something, but not have the complete something. In other words, rather than having either 10 or 0, you have 1 through to nine.

No, it's like. either you have no cookie, or you have some cookie. It might be .000000000000000001% of a cookie, but you still don't have nothing, you have something. if you don't have a complete something, you still have something, just something smaller.

Yeah--I care about being lied about far too much.

Damn me for not liking people lying about me!
Not just the lying(though on that, this is an internet forum. Internet being the word to pay attention to there. Nobody here is bothered much by what other people say about them. Try it some time :) ). Why does it bother you so much that I(and other people) have a different idea of atheism than you do?

Not just the lying(though on that, this is an internet forum. Internet being the word to pay attention to there. Nobody here is bothered much by what other people say about them. Try it some time :) ). Why does it bother you so much that I(and other people) have a different idea of atheism than you do?

It's that he thinks there's a point between something and nothing that bothers me. *shrug*

Not just the lying(though on that, this is an internet forum. Internet being the word to pay attention to there. Nobody here is bothered much by what other people say about them. Try it some time
You don't get bothered if people lie about you? How strange.


Why does it bother you so much that I(and other people) have a different idea of atheism than you do?
Why does it not bother you that you use the term "atheism" incorrectly?

Then you're changing the definition of "something" to mean ONLY "the whole".

Just as I said you were doing.
In the context you have used it, it is you who has changed this definition. You claim that agnosticism is not between atheism and theism because there can be nothing between something and nothing. There is nothing between 1 and 0. But the agnostic recognises the possibility of both 1 and 0. In other words, an average; the 0.5.

Indeed, bringing us right round in a circle to my original point; that he is setting his own terms of reference, and then refusing to accept anything outside of these terms.

He is saying "you either have something or you do not". I am saying that it is possible to have something, but not have the complete something. In other words, rather than having either 10 or 0, you have 1 through to nine.

religion is like eating ice cream. i can think about having ice cream as long as i want, but as long as i'm only thinking about it, i'm not eating it.

Indeed, bringing us right round in a circle to my original point; that he is setting his own terms of reference, and then refusing to accept anything outside of these terms.

He is saying "you either have something or you do not". I am saying that it is possible to have something, but not have the complete something. In other words, rather than having either 10 or 0, you have 1 through to nine.

I'm with Dina on this one. It seems like BAWA was drawing the disjoint between something and nothing. I think the part about the "whole" (which we agree is different), is something you added, Philo.

Still, I think that just means its a language thing, I don't think you're deliberately lying.

In the context you have used it,
...my terms never changed. You're changing the concept of "something".

The agnostic who thinks that there is a .5 is using something other than base-2, and the correct base to use is base-2.