NationStates Jolt Archive

It's part of a totally separate scale.
I disagree. If one accepts that we can never know one way or the other, that is a belief system. The natural place to put that belief system would be between the two other belief systems that happen to be polar opposites: Theism and Atheism. Thus, the fence-sitting. If one believes that we can never know one way or the other, that is essentially doubt. Doubt that something can, or cannot, exist one way or the other. I don't see how an Agnostic cannot be sure one way or the other and be Agnostic while on the other hand not believe and be Atheist. Theism and Atheism are both beliefs: Theism the belief of a diety, Atheism the belief there is no diety. Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know. Which leads us back to logically prooving beyond a doubt somethings existence or nonexistance, which cannot occur at present.

I'm impossible, I know. But honestly, "possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge" is the whole thing behind the Theist and Atheist divide. I think a better term for it is "gut feeling", instead of groping about attempting to scrounge up "intellectual" knowledge to proove or disproove something's existence. The "spritual" knowledge would be the "gut feeling". In my opinion humans feel, deep down, there is a god or not, which is why Agnosticism is the thin line between Atheist and Theist. It doesn't exist on some seperate scale, unless that graph is suggesting that roughly half of all Theists and Atheists really can't decide whether which way to go, and are merely Theists or Atheists out of convience. After all, Christ doubted. Its human, but move on, lest one miss the party doubting it exists.

Don't bother nitpicking, I'm going to bed. Its 04.24 now. Good night.

*yawn*

Go back and read what you wrote. Read all of it.
Oh for the love of...

My statement about the concept of agnosticism was precisely to highlight a form of reasoning that you made with reference to the concept of God. What I think doesn't matter compared to what the person who asks the question thinks.

My Atheism in an observer's eyes doesn't depend on my views on God anywhere near as much as it does on their views. It is not what I believe but what you believe that decides my label.

That point was clearly made. If you were too impatient to read past the first line, then so be it.

They are either theists or atheists.

I think they are in the akward undecided years, straddling the fence. But they neither deny the existance of god or believe in him. So if you argue semantics then i guess it all depends on how you define the word. I personally view them as their own seperate group, there are shades of grey in belief structures afterall.

It's only logical that you come to the conclusion that any assertion which insulates itself from scrutiny that is not an a priori statement is worthless junk which is undifferentiable from not saying anything at all.
Right. How could I possibly say anything about it at all, except I don't know what's behind that door. Could be God, could be a terribly smart kitten, could be oblivion.

[sigh] Let's do the etymological breakdown then.

a - anti, opposite, lack of, not, no
theo - deity, religion
ist - one who believes in, one who is an adherent of

becomes

Atheist - One who believes in a lack of a God OR One who is the adherent of the opposite of a religion OR One who does not believe in God OR One who has no belief in God.

Thus, an atheist is a person who, simply, does not believe in God. In his or her view, there is no God. It is a non-ambiguous position. No belief in god. An agnostic, on the other hand, has the belief that there is not sufficient evidence to decide either way, or that it is not possible for a person to know either way. An agnostic does not believe that there is no God. It's a completely separate belief.

Okay everyone, for the record, know where I divide from BAAWA. My opinions are in the chart.

theo - deity, religion
In order to say that this breakdown is fully self-contained, you need to also include a description of this middle part.

As long as it is contested, there can be no single Atheism.

Oh for the love of...

My statement about the concept of agnosticism was precisely to highlight a form of reasoning that you made with reference to the concept of God. What I think doesn't matter compared to what the person who asks the question thinks.
And I was making a statement about your definition of agnosticism. Go back and re-read it.

[sigh] Let's do the etymological breakdown then.

a - anti, opposite, lack of, not, no
theo - deity, religion
ist - one who believes in, one who is an adherent of

becomes

Atheist - One who believes in a lack of a God OR One who is the adherent of the opposite of a religion OR One who does not believe in God OR One who has no belief in God.

Thus, an atheist is a person who, simply, does not believe in God. In his or her view, there is no God. It is a non-ambiguous position. No belief in god. An agnostic, on the other hand, has the belief that there is not sufficient evidence to decide either way, or that it is not possible for a person to know either way. An agnostic does not believe that there is no God. It's a completely separate belief.

But the problem is Free that if you don't have a belief in god then your by definition an atheist because atheism includes the position of simply lacking belief as well as believing there is no god. Simply put if you say there could be a god or they could not be a god its just we don't have enough information so we cant know and then based on that you don't have a belief you fit into the definition of atheism.

[sigh] Let's do the etymological breakdown then.

a - anti, opposite, lack of, not, no
WRONG!

a- DOES NOT MEAN ANTI OR OPPOSITE.


theo - deity, religion
WRONG!

theos means god or gods. NEVER does it mean "religion".


ist - one who believes in, one who is an adherent of

becomes

Atheist - One who believes in a lack of a God OR One who does not believe in God
I edited that part to make it correct.


Thus, an atheist is a person who, simply, does not believe in God.
Which IS NOT THE SAME AS believing there is no god.


In his or her view, there is no God.
WRONG! Demonstrated above.


It is a non-ambiguous position. No belief in god. An agnostic, on the other hand, has the belief that there is not sufficient evidence to decide either way,
WRONG!

An agnostic either lacks knowledge of what god is or that god is. There are no other options regarding the dichotomy.

I think they are in the akward undecided years, straddling the fence. But they neither deny the existance of god or believe in him. So if you argue semantics then i guess it all depends on how you define the word. I personally view them as their own seperate group, there are shades of grey in belief structures afterall.
Not in having/lacking. There is no grey. There is have or lack. You either have something or you do not have something. No. Middle. Ground.

Right. How could I possibly say anything about it at all, except I don't know what's behind that door.
And if someone says "X is behind that door.", you wouldn't have the belief that X is behind the door.

You would lack that belief.

In order to say that this breakdown is fully self-contained, you need to also include a description of this middle part.

As long as it is contested, there can be no single Atheism.

....I'm not sure I understand you. Is the meaning of the root 'theo' in doubt?

And if someone says "X is behind that door.", you wouldn't have the belief that X is behind the door.

You would lack that belief.
If I could see the door, I might make a judgement call. Someone is telling me X is behind that door but I can't see that door. I see one door that leads outside. I see another door that leads to my bathroom. I learned that from experience.

Not in having/lacking. There is no grey. There is have or lack. You either have something or you do not have something. No. Middle. Ground.

a) So I guess you don't believe in bisexuals either? :rolleyes:

b) So are you ignoring my etymological breakdown?

a) So I guess you don't believe in bisexuals either? :rolleyes:

b) So are you ignoring my etymological breakdown?

Free its not that agnosticism doesn't exist. Its a subcategory but its still there.

Edit: Check on the last page for his remark to your break down.

If I could see the door, I might make a judgement call. Someone is telling me X is behind that door but I can't see that door. I see one door that leads outside. I see another door that leads to my bathroom. I learned that from experience.
We're assuming for these purposes that you've never seen the door before, nor the place where the door is.

We're assuming for these purposes that you've never seen the door before, nor the place where the door is.
Of course. We'd have to if we were going to relate it to God.

a) So I guess you don't believe in bisexuals either? :rolleyes:
Non sequitur/red herring.


b) So are you ignoring my etymological breakdown?
Already responded to.

I disagree. If one accepts that we can never know one way or the other, that is a belief system. The natural place to put that belief system would be between the two other belief systems that happen to be polar opposites: Theism and Atheism. Thus, the fence-sitting. If one believes that we can never know one way or the other, that is essentially doubt. Doubt that something can, or cannot, exist one way or the other. I don't see how an Agnostic cannot be sure one way or the other and be Agnostic while on the other hand not believe and be Atheist. Theism and Atheism are both beliefs:

Nihilist and Theist are both belief system, I don't think they belong on the same scale

Agnostic. It's about whether with can know for sure or not. Unlike the other two, which are about whether you believe or not. If you beileve but don't think we can ever know for sure, Agnostic Theist. I don't believe, but I also don't think we can know that for sure, Agnostic Atheist.

Theism the belief of a diety, Atheism the belief there is no diety. Agnosticism is the belief that we cannot know. Which leads us back to logically prooving beyond a doubt somethings existence or nonexistance, which cannot occur at present.

Not quite. Theism, yes. Agnostic, yes. Atheism, lack of belief in a deity.



Don't bother nitpicking, I'm going to bed. Its 04.24 now. Good night.

Well, that sucks.

What an exceedingly unpleasant person you are. Has a psychologist ever recommended anger management therapy for you? You could take the pharmaceutical route as well - sedatives would work like a charm.

WRONG!

a- DOES NOT MEAN ANTI OR OPPOSITE.

In a binary proposition, 'not' is the same as 'opposite.'

Which IS NOT THE SAME AS believing there is no god.

Of course it is. There are three possible positions on this subject: You believe in God, you believe in no God, or you believe neither and make no judgement, believing instead that it is impossible to know either way. If you do not believe in God, than you believe in no God. There has to be a separate belief that involves belief in the futility of the theism-atheism axis for it to be agnosticism, but that tripole category nonetheless exists.

WRONG!

This is just the Refrain of Rudeness for you, isn't it?

-----

I'm rather confused as to what you're advocating. You're attempting to refute basically anything that comes out of any other poster on this thread's fingers, but it's not much of a unified argument. I was under the impression that you don't believe there is such a thing as agnosticism, for whatever bizarre reason you have. Am I wrong?

I had an interesting experience at work...one of my coworkers asked me if I believed in God as a Jew, and I said that most Jews do but I'm not sure myself. She told another coworker, who said that she was so surprised to hear that I was an atheist because we'd always had very interesting and lively discussions about religion and I'd never shown my hate for religion. I was like, what? She said that she thought atheists hate all forms of religion. It took a while to convince her that atheism just means you don't believe in God, not that you hate religion. That would be considered an intolerant atheist.

Has anybody experienced that sort of misperception before?

Of course it is. There are three possible positions on this subject: You believe in God, you believe in no God, or you believe neither and make no judgement, believing instead that it is impossible to know either way. If you do not believe in God, than you believe in no God. There has to be a separate belief that involves belief in the futility of the theism-atheism axis for it to be agnosticism, but that tripole category nonetheless exists.

You either believe in a god (Theism) or you don't believe in a god (Atheism)
AND You either believe we can know for sure one way or the other (Gnostism) or you don't believe that (Agnostism) There are four possible positions, a combination of gnostic and thestic.

I had an interesting experience at work...one of my coworkers asked me if I believed in God as a Jew, and I said that most Jews do but I'm not sure myself. She told another coworker, who said that she was so surprised to hear that I was an atheist because we'd always had very interesting and lively discussions about religion and I'd never shown my hate for religion. I was like, what? She said that she thought atheists hate all forms of religion. It took a while to convince her that atheism just means you don't believe in God, not that you hate religion. That would be considered an intolerant atheist.

Has anybody experienced that sort of misperception before?

Yep. My Christian friend, upon knowing I was atheist (and a mix of a lot of other religions), actually asked me why I was friends with her. She thought that I should've shunned her after knowing she was Christian.

I had an interesting experience at work...one of my coworkers asked me if I believed in God as a Jew, and I said that most Jews do but I'm not sure myself. She told another coworker, who said that she was so surprised to hear that I was an atheist because we'd always had very interesting and lively discussions about religion and I'd never shown my hate for religion. I was like, what? She said that she thought atheists hate all forms of religion. It took a while to convince her that atheism just means you don't believe in God, not that you hate religion. That would be considered an intolerant atheist.

Has anybody experienced that sort of misperception before?
yeah, but in my case I actually do hate religion and feel it does far more harm to society than good. So i guess its not a misperception persay, but you get the idea.

You either believe in a god (Theism) or you don't believe in a god (Atheism)
AND You either believe we can know for sure one way or the other (Gnostism) or you don't believe that (Agnostism) There are four possible positions, a combination of gnostic and thestic.

So, Atheism and Theism is decided based upon whether you believe in a god or not, while Agnosticism and Gnosticism are whether you believe you can know if there is a god or not?

I'm just trying to clarify the positions here. Also, it seems that would lead to combinations like Agnostic Atheist or Gnostic Theist. Is that correct?

Of course it is. There are three possible positions on this subject: You believe in God, you believe in no God, or you believe neither and make no judgement, believing instead that it is impossible to know either way. If you do not believe in God, than you believe in no God. There has to be a separate belief that involves belief in the futility of the theism-atheism axis for it to be agnosticism, but that tripole category nonetheless exists.

Free you have to understand that by not making a judgement you enter into the default position of lacking a belief in god. You don't actively say there is no god but you don't have a belief in one and because of that agnosticism fits under the definition of atheism.

[sigh] Let's do the etymological breakdown then.

a - anti, opposite, lack of, not, no
theo - deity, religion
ist - one who believes in, one who is an adherent of

becomes

Atheist - One who believes in a lack of a God OR One who is the adherent of the opposite of a religion OR One who does not believe in God OR One who has no belief in God.

Thus, an atheist is a person who, simply, does not believe in God. In his or her view, there is no God. It is a non-ambiguous position. No belief in god. An agnostic, on the other hand, has the belief that there is not sufficient evidence to decide either way, or that it is not possible for a person to know either way. An agnostic does not believe that there is no God. It's a completely separate belief.

I prefer to call myself a Humanist......atheist seems to me a derogatory term used those who believe in ghosts. Having two classiifications makes it seem as there is a correct belief and an incorrect belief, Atheism being incorrect and that religion is equal in value to science which it is not.

Looking at it logically there is only one possibilty, there are no gods. Science backs up the belief there is no god of any sort. Believers in deitys have no proof to back up their claims only faith. There is as much evidence to justify the belief in the Windigo, Vampires, tooth fairy, trolls , elves and so on as there is a god......

so ....there are only rational Humanists and silly people who believe in spooks and fairys......




agnostics are Humanists who are afraid of a social backlash from their families and the ignorant regligious types, cowards afraid to speak-up

You either believe in a god (Theism) or you don't believe in a god (Atheism)
AND You either believe we can know for sure one way or the other (Gnostism) or you don't believe that (Agnostism) There are four possible positions, a combination of gnostic and thestic.

True, but, the agnostic category can't be split in two along theism-atheism lines.

if(gnostic)
- You can be differentiated along theo-atheo lines, and can be either a theist or an atheist.
else
if(agnostic)
- You can't be differentiated that way. The theo-atheo axis in nonapplicable.

Thus, there are three categories: theist, atheist, or agnostic.

In a binary proposition, 'not' is the same as 'opposite.'
That's binary math. This is natural language.


Of course it is.
Of course it isn't.

If I lack belief, it means I don't have this specific belief in question.

If I believe in lack, then I believe that the thing doesn't exist.

Totally. Different.

Got anything more for me to demolish?

I prefer to call myself a Humanist......atheist seems to me a derogatory term used those who believe in ghosts. Having two classiifications makes it seem as there is a correct belief and an incorrect belief, Atheism being incorrect and that religion is equal in value to science which it is not.

Looking at it logically there is only one possibilty, there are no gods. Science backs up the belief there is no god of any sort. Believers in deitys have no proof to back up their claims only faith. There is as much evidence to justify the belief in the Windigo, Vampires, tooth fairy, trolls , elves and so on as there is a god......

so ....there are only rational Humanists and silly people who believe in spooks and fairys......

I agree, but it's rather outside the current topic of discussion.

Are we still doing the door thing or is that done?

True, but, the agnostic category can't be split in two along theism-atheism lines.
It can and has been. There is no separate agnostic category because agnosticism isn't about belief in existence, but about knowledge.

IT'S A MODIFIER OF SOMETHING ELSE, NOT A SEPARATE THING UNTO ITSELF.

Why can't people grasp that simple concept?

So, Atheism and Theism is decided based upon whether you believe in a god or not, while Agnosticism and Gnosticism are whether you believe you can know if there is a god or not?
Know if there is a god or what god is.


I'm just trying to clarify the positions here. Also, it seems that would lead to combinations like Agnostic Atheist or Gnostic Theist. Is that correct?
Absolutely.

It can and has been. There is no separate agnostic category because agnosticism isn't about belief in existence, but about knowledge.

IT'S A MODIFIER OF SOMETHING ELSE, NOT A SEPARATE THING UNTO ITSELF.

Why can't people grasp that simple concept?

Because when these conversations come up people think its more of an attack on the position almost like your trying to deny its validity when your not.

That's binary math. This is natural language.



Of course it isn't.

If I lack belief, it means I don't have this specific belief in question.

If I believe in lack, then I believe that the thing doesn't exist.

Totally. Different.

Got anything more for me to demolish?

Requests for politeness are water off a duck, most obviously. But on topic:

ROFLOL. So language is divorced from logic, now? You've as much as admitted that your interpretation of the language in question is illogical, and are apparently using that as a reason for being correct. I thought I'd never see the day...

ROFLOL. So language is divorced from logic, now?
Strawman.

Got anything that doesn't involve a fallacy?

So, Atheism and Theism is decided based upon whether you believe in a god or not, while Agnosticism and Gnosticism are whether you believe you can know if there is a god or not?

I'm just trying to clarify the positions here. Also, it seems that would lead to combinations like Agnostic Atheist or Gnostic Theist. Is that correct?

Yes, exactly.

True, but, the agnostic category can't be split in two along theism-atheism lines.

if(gnostic)
- You can be differentiated along theo-atheo lines, and can be either a theist or an atheist.
else
if(agnostic)
- You can't be differentiated that way. The theo-atheo axis in nonapplicable.

Thus, there are three categories: theist, atheist, or agnostic.

I don't believe we can prove one way or the other (Agnostic) But I don't believe in a god (Atheist). Yes, agnostic can be divided

“Theism” is defined as the “belief in a god or gods.” The term “theism” is sometimes used to designate the belief in a particular kind of god—the personal god of monotheism—but as used throughout this book, “theism” signifies the belief in any god or number of gods. The prefix “a” means “without,” so the term “a-theism” literally means “without theism,” or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist.

Atheism is sometimes defined as “the belief that there is no God of any kind,” or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism—and they are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist; rather, he does not believe in the existence of a god.

As here defined, the term “atheism” has a wider scope than the meanings usually attached to it. The two most common usages are described by Paul Edwards as follows:


“First, there is the familiar sense in which a person is an atheist if he maintains that there is no God, where this is taken to mean that “God exists” expresses a false proposition. Secondly, there is also a broader sense in which a person is an atheist if he rejects belief in God, regardless of whether his rejection is based on the view that belief in God is false.”


Both of these meanings are important kinds of atheism, but neither does justice to atheism in its widest sense. “Atheism” is a privative term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism. If we use the phrase “belief-in-god” as a substitute for theism, we see that its negation is “no-belief-in-god”—or, in other words, “a-theism.” This is simply another way of stating “without theism” or the absence of belief in god.

“Theism” and “atheism” are descriptive terms: they specify the presence or absence of a belief in god. If a person is designated as a theist, this tells us that he believes in a god, not why he believes. If a person is designated as an atheist, this tells us that he does not believe in a god, not why he does not believe.

There are many reasons why one may not believe in the existence of a god: one may have never encountered the concept of god before, or one may consider the idea of a supernatural being to be absurd, or one may think that there is no evidence to support the belief in a god. But regardless of the reason, if one does not believe in the existence of a god, one is an atheist; i.e., one is without theistic belief.

In this context, theism and atheism exhaust all possible alternatives with regard to the belief in a god: one is either a theist or an atheist; there is no other choice. One either accepts the proposition “god exists” as true, or one does not. One either believes in a supernatural being, or one does not. There is no third option or middle ground. This immediately raises the question of agnosticism, which has traditionally been offered as a third alternative to theism and atheism.

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

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

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

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

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


Both of the above from Atheism: The Case Against God

I don't believe we can prove one way or the other (Agnostic) But I don't believe in a god (Atheist). Yes, agnostic can be divided
You don't have to believe or not believe... that's what I don't get about this conversation. You're asking me to actively choose to believe or not to believe assuming and I'm saying that point is moot. Imagine being given a math problem where the only thing written on the page is: Solve for X. If you solve it you are a believer. If you don't solve it you're a non-believer. I'm asking for a better Math teacher.

And I'll wait patiently til I get one.

You don't have to believe or not believe
Yes, you do. That's reality. It doesn't mean you have to believe or believe in not. Not believing IS NOT THE SAME as believing in not.

Why people like you have a problem grasping that very simple concept is beyond me.

It can and has been. There is no separate agnostic category because agnosticism isn't about belief in existence, but about knowledge.

So...you don't believe in the philosophical field of epistemology? Or biaxial reasoning? You seem to be deciding that things aren't true or don't apply out of hand every time something that makes the discussion less than simple or in your favor comes up. It isn't a very rational or mature conversational quality.

IT'S A MODIFIER OF SOMETHING ELSE, NOT A SEPARATE THING UNTO ITSELF.

Actually, it's the opposite. Theism/atheism is a modifier on gnosticism. The first binary decision point is gnostic/agnostic - do you believe it is possible to know? If you choose the former, you reach the second fork in the philosophical road - if so, which do you think is the truth? It's a really, really simple exercise in boolean logic. There are three leaves on the binary tree, three potential results - agnosticism, theistic gnosticism, and atheistic gnosticism.

Why can't people grasp that simple concept?

Perhaps because you're consistently rude, hostile, and repetitive?

So...you don't believe in the philosophical field of epistemology?
I do. You don't seem to believe in what words mean.


Actually, it's the opposite.
Actually, it's not.

Feel free to disabuse yourself of your erroneous notions anytime.

Yes, you do. That's reality. It doesn't mean you have to believe or believe in not. Not believing IS NOT THE SAME as believing in not.

Why people like you have a problem grasping that very simple concept is beyond me.
I can't believe.

I agree, but it's rather outside the current topic of discussion.

it's not, you can all debate the meaning of words and their origin but it's irrelevant because a dictionary would easily resolve the debate...... how can you label someone an atheist in regards to something that in his/her eyes does not exist....a bit of an abstract concept, don't know if it makes sense to anyone but me.....

Yep. My Christian friend, upon knowing I was atheist (and a mix of a lot of other religions), actually asked me why I was friends with her. She thought that I should've shunned her after knowing she was Christian.

That's interesting. I suppose it could go either way...intolerant people exist everywhere, whatever belief they espouse.

I can't believe.
What can't you believe?

Notice that you have to SPECIFY.

Actually, it's not.

Feel free to disabuse yourself of your erroneous notions anytime.

So....you've decided to ignore the argument for my assertion, in favor of just saying it's wrong?

If you want people to accept your point of view, here's a quick tip: Counter your opponent's argument. Otherwise you're just being thick, and/or admitting that you can't refute the argument in question.

What can't you believe?

Notice that you have to SPECIFY.
I can't believe in what has not been experienced.

So....you've decided to ignore the argument for my assertion,
Your argument has nothing to do with the topic. So why shouldn't I ignore it?

You decided to ignore the context and say "Well, first you have to believe if you can know anything at all", and we're talking about a specific belief.

You went all red herring.

Also, check on page 36 for quotes from George H. Smith to completely disabuse yourself of your idiotic notions.

Here's a hint: ignoring page after page of explanations makes people think you're a total idiot.

I can't believe in what has not been experienced.
Then you lack belief in that thing.

[sigh] You're really not worth arguing with.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

[sigh] You're really not worth arguing with.
Thank you for your concession.

Yes, you do. That's reality. It doesn't mean you have to believe or believe in not. Not believing IS NOT THE SAME as believing in not.

Why people like you have a problem grasping that very simple concept is beyond me.

Belief is an active choice. We choose to believe in a god or choose not to. You seem to be saying that by not choosing, we are actually making a choice and choosing not to believe.

Then you lack belief in that thing.
I could go either way, really. I'll wait til it comes up.

Belief is an active choice. We choose to believe in a god or choose not to. You seem to be saying that by not choosing, we are actually making a choice and choosing not to believe.
Not believing != believing in not.

Not believing != believing in not.

Not believing != believing in not.

Not believing != believing in not.

Just so you understand.

Thank you for your concession.

You seem to be under the impression that it's a comment reflecting positively on you - it isn't. You're not worth arguing with not because of your skills in that activity or the strength of your position, but because of those traits of your personality and argumentative tactics which resemble the other end of the link you amusingly failed to quote.

I could go either way, really. I'll wait til it comes up.
Then you lack belief in the thing.

The Agnostic does not simply say, "I do not know." He goes another step and says with great emphasis that you do not know.
-Robert Green Ingersoll

You seem to be under the impression that it's a comment reflecting positively on you
You seem to be under the impression that your antics create a positive air around you--they don't.

You conceded. You have nothing to offer. You just kept positing the same refuted crap, all the while ignoring the refutations.

Go home, junior. This place is for adults.

BAAWA, you've been here (saying the exact same thing) for like 6 hours, don't you have anything better to do?

yeah, but in my case I actually do hate religion and feel it does far more harm to society than good. So i guess its not a misperception persay, but you get the idea.

Well, that wouldn't be just an atheist, that would be an atheist who also doesn't like religion. I don't think religion is great, and I hate some of the things that go on in the name of religion, but I doubt trying to get rid of religion would fix anything, for two reasons:

1. People in general have an innate need to believe in something higher than themselves. If it's not a god, it's a person that people mentally give superhuman traits, or a belief in personal specialness. Most of us have some form of that belief, if only to be able to get through a day without collapsing with the meaninglessness of it all.

2. People will do terrible things no matter what. Religion is one rationalization, but there are many out there to choose from. People can get real creative with that sort of thing.

Not believing != believing in not.

Not believing != believing in not.

Not believing != believing in not.

Not believing != believing in not.

Just so you understand.

How so?

I see what you're saying, I've seen it over the last 30 pages or so. This whole business of "believing in not" is just unfamiliar to me, so I'd appreciate some elaboration.

BAAWA, you've been here (saying the exact same thing) for like 6 hours, don't you have anything better to do?
Yeah, but I'm not doing them right now. Do we understand each other?

Then you lack belief in the thing.
I believe a thing must have some physical presence, if it does, then I do believe in that thing.

How so?
*sigh*

If I don't believe, I lack belief. I don't have belief X.

If I believe in lack, then I believe that X doesn't exist.

Quite different.

You seem to be under the impression that your antics create a positive air around you--they don't.

My antics? Please recall the person who uses rudeness, insults, and jingoism as a substitute for refutation.

You conceded. You have nothing to offer. You just kept positing the same refuted crap, all the while ignoring the refutations.

Look in the mirror, and please stop projecting your inadequacies onto me.

This place is for adults.

Really? I'll need you to please leave the building, then. Will you require an escort?

I believe a thing must have some physical presence, if it does, then I do believe in that thing.
And if not?

My antics?
Yes. Please recall that I actually put forth arguments. You ignored them.

Please leave, junior.

And if not?
Then there was nothing that required my attention.

Yes. Please recall that I actually put forth arguments. You ignored them.

Please leave, junior.

A person who knows so little about basic logic and principles of philosophy, and who presents the same, unvarying arguments time and again without actual refutation of counterarguments would qualify much better as 'junior' - as would someone who attempts to divorce himself and his use of language from the necessity of logic.

A person who knows so little about basic logic and principles of philosophy,
Such as yourself.

You even conflated binary math propositions with natural language propositions. What a moron!

As I am forced by your - selective - quotation and refutation:

- as would someone who attempts to divorce himself and his use of language from the necessity of logic.

As I am forced by your selective quotation and refutation:
Sorry bubba--you conflated natural language propositions with binary math propositions. You're the one in error.

Now leave, junior.

Now leave, junior.

This is getting almost as repetitive as "WRONG"! Are you sure you aren't an Elizabot?

Allow me to quote again... it's just so perfect:

Anger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great and important question, everyone should be serene, slow-pulsed and calm.
Robert Green Ingersoll

This is getting almost as repetitive as "WRONG"!
Then stop committing the same errors over and over!

Allow me to quote again... it's just so perfect:

Anger blows out the lamp of the mind. In the examination of a great and important question, everyone should be serene, slow-pulsed and calm.
Robert Green Ingersoll

Now let's meditate on that quote, BAAWA - say it with me, om....

Then stop committing the same errors over and over!

"Leave, junior" is not a response to an error. It's just general rudeness and attempted intimidation tactics.

If I don't believe, I lack belief. I don't have belief X.

If I believe in lack, then I believe that X doesn't exist.

Quite different.

That part is wrong. When you lack belief, you don't believe X or disbelieve X.

Thus, when you belive in the lack of the belief, you are simply believing you do not believe X or disbelieve X.

Now let's meditate on that quote, BAAWA - say it with me, om....
Don't make me get all Ti Kwan Leep on you.

That part is wrong.
No, it's correct.


When you lack belief, you don't believe X
That's right--you just don't believe.

The rest is just your misunderstanding of the whole thing.

I've never heard of that one. Is it like Jew-do?

I've never heard of that one. Is it like Jew-do?
http://www.webguys.com/pdavis/karate/tikwanleep.html

The rest is just your misunderstanding of the whole thing.

No, there's misunderstanding here, but not on my part.

"Leave, junior" is not a response to an error.
It is.

No, there's misunderstanding here, but not on my part.
Since I explained it correctly, I can only surmise that the misunderstanding must be on your part.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/justified.html
The Bifurcated Proposition
The usual argument used by atheists to attempt to convince a nonatheist and nontheist to convert to atheism is that there are only two alternatives, either you believe that God exists or you do not believe that God exists. If you believe that God exists, you are a theist, and in the alternative, if you do not believe that God exists, you are an atheist. The atheist assumes that those are the only two options, and will sometimes badger an agnostic until and unless they assert their willingness to convert to atheism.

In the formal language of logic, the proposition that the atheist (described above) is advocating is this one, wherein G stands for "God exists" [2] :

P1: G v ¬G (Either God exists or God does not exist.)

The above is just based upon a restatement of the principle from Classical logic known as the Principle of the Excluded Middle. In Classical logic, this principle is seen as a tautology, which cannot be false. Accordingly, assertions based upon that principle have great force, at least for so long as Classical logic is seen as absolutely valid. But, as Floy Andrews has explained, in his essay The Principle of Excluded Middle Then And Now: Aristotle And Principia Mathematica:

It is clear that those who subscribe to the Classical position on Bivalence and Excluded Middle, do express some form of 'realism' [Dummett's characterization]: there is for them a "world" which is what it is whether we know it or not; and true propositions are simply those that express what is the case with the world. ...

To trace the history of this (largely) twentieth century 'realism' would be long, and out of place here. Whatever its origin, in Frege's rejection of what he calls "psychologism" or elsewhere, this much can be said, that the logic which he invented was so radical and so remarkably compelling and productive that it effected its own revolution. Frege succeeded in reducing all of classical mathematics to a single formal system. But that would have had only esoteric interest. His revolution in logic lies in his doctrine that singular sentences are atoms, and more complex propositions are simply truth-functions of these atoms. Once a mechanical calculus of truth-functions was provided, then Classical logic became an extraordinarily powerful technique for manipulating these atoms, ordering them in ways that serve the prevailing interest in the logic of contingencies, the concatenation of `facts' for practical and theoretical purposes. ... In its wonderful simplicity, power and decidability it is said to have advanced in a very short time beyond everything achieved in logic in its previous 2000 year history. In this case, it is the logic which carries the metaphysics with it: the `realism' of our times is consequent on the unquestioned success and authority of Classical logic.

If anything else is to be gleaned from the matters analyzed here, perhaps it is this, that Classical logic is a particularly inept instrument to analyze those philosophies which stand opposed to the 'realism' it demands. Yet we see such analyses everywhere in philosophical literature, presented as though they were objective assessments of positions they can at best dogmatically oppose.

The mention of Dummett and his definition of "realism" as the metaphysical underpinnings of Classical logic, as described above, serves to introduce my main thesis herein: that the argument advanced by atheists, above, is formally invalid, for the reasons explained by Dummett and his followers. This essay of mine is based upon a book length attack on "realism" and Classical logic: Language, Logic and Experience: The Case for Anti-Realism, by Michael Luntley, who is a proponant of Dummett's "antirealism" school of philosophy. I shall now summarize Luntley's argument from the referenced book.

A realist believes that P1 (the Principle of Excluded Middle, above) is valid and applies in all cases. In fact, the entire structure of Classical logic is based upon some version of that formulation, because (as Andrews suggests) "the three principles of Aristotelian Logic are clearly only interdefinitions in Classical logic." Thus, the Principle of the Excluded Middle, the Principle of Contradiction (that a thing may not be and not be at the same time), and the Principle of Identity (that a thing has an immutable nature and is thus always identical with itself) are all just themes and variations of the same underlying principle. The realist believes in the universal applicability of those principles. However, is the realist justified in that belief? The key insight of Luntley's book, above, is the idea that a failure to have any experience of some given element’s truth value leaves that element logically undefined, and this undefined state cannot properly be treated in the way that classical logic treats it, as represented by P1, above. Andrews, in his essay, makes similar observations about contradictory propositions where some common element (the subject of both propositions) is logically false. An example of this would be the propositions that "God is good" and "God is not good" if the subject (God) does not exist. In that case, both propositions fail, and the Principle of the Excluded Middle falls with them.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/bill_schultz/justified.html
The Bifurcated Proposition
The usual argument used by atheists to attempt to convince a nonatheist and nontheist to convert to atheism is that there are only two alternatives,
There are.

Have.

Lack.

Nothing Billy can come up with can change that.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767655&postcount=540

There are.

Have.

Lack.

Nothing Billy can come up with can change that.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767655&postcount=540
Undefined. State.

Undefined. State.
Lack. Belief.

Well, that wouldn't be just an atheist, that would be an atheist who also doesn't like religion. I don't think religion is great, and I hate some of the things that go on in the name of religion, but I doubt trying to get rid of religion would fix anything, for two reasons:

1. People in general have an innate need to believe in something higher than themselves. If it's not a god, it's a person that people mentally give superhuman traits, or a belief in personal specialness. Most of us have some form of that belief, if only to be able to get through a day without collapsing with the meaninglessness of it all.

2. People will do terrible things no matter what. Religion is one rationalization, but there are many out there to choose from. People can get real creative with that sort of thing.

I agree. To displace an entrenched religious belief system is difficult and the consequences are iffy. Enforced atheism in USSR and China helped to enhance the personality cult of their leaders to a fanatical extreme. Human beings do have this innate need to believe in higher powers.

Of course theists and atheists come in multiple flavors. Some theists have a belief system more similar to some atheists, than other theists. The genius (and downfall as the other side of the same coin) of patriarchal, organized religion is its ability to:

1. Use unsupported infinitives to enhance its appearance of power to its poorly-read followers.

2. Use diametric opposites to paint non-believers as a unified evil force to be dealt with extreme prejudice.

So though I agree that religion is only one of many rationalizations for crimes against humanity, I consider it one of the most effective. It is well designed to be used as a military tool.

You don't have to believe or not believe... that's what I don't get about this conversation. You're asking me to actively choose to believe or not to believe assuming and I'm saying that point is moot. Imagine being given a math problem where the only thing written on the page is: Solve for X. If you solve it you are a believer. If you don't solve it you're a non-believer. I'm asking for a better Math teacher.

And I'll wait patiently til I get one.

So you solve if you're a believer. Did you solve it? No. Escpecially if you didn't attempt, you didn't solve it. Thus non-believer.

*snip*

Short version?

So you solve if you're a believer. Did you solve it? No. Escpecially if you didn't attempt, you didn't solve it. Thus non-believer.



Short version?
I just don't understand the question yet. Undefined state. I assume I'll get to it if something happens when I die.

Lack. Belief.
No, I believe in God if he exists. I believe in all things that exist.

It is.

This is utterly pointless, the definition of a flamewar. Have fun being repetitive with others - it's getting late here.

No, I believe in God if he exists.
If. But since you don't know right now, you don't have the belief that there is a god.

See how easy it is when you don't muck it up with emotive garbage?

I just don't understand the question yet. Undefined state. I assume I'll get to it if something happens when I die.

Well then, if you don't understand it you're far from solving it, it would make Atheist even more appropriate, like someone who's never heard of a god.

This is utterly pointless,
Feel free to understand why you've been wrong throughout this whole thread.

So you solve if you're a believer. Did you solve it? No. Escpecially if you didn't attempt, you didn't solve it. Thus non-believer.


But belief isn't an equation, it's a multiple choice:

Do you believe in a god?
1)Yes
2)No

If you choose 1, then you believe. If you choose to, you don't believe. If you leave it blank, you haven't chosen. 2 is not chosen by default simply by leaving the answer blank.

But belief isn't an equation, it's a multiple choice:

Do you believe in a god?
1)Yes
2)No
Do you have the belief that there is a god? Yes/No

That's the correct phrasing.

Learn it.

(And again, not believing IS NOT THE SAME as believing in not. If you choose 2, YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY CHOOSING THAT YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD.)

Do you have the belief that there is a god? Yes/No

That's the correct phrasing.

Learn it.

(And again, not believing IS NOT THE SAME as believing in not. If you choose 2, YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY CHOOSING THAT YOU BELIEVE THERE IS NO GOD.)

So, even with your correct phrasing, how can it be that if I answer no, I'm not answering no?

And the all caps thing is annoying. I can read it just fine.

So, even with your correct phrasing, how can it be that if I answer no, I'm not answering no?
You are. You just don't understand the difference between lack of belief and belief in lack. Even after having it explained to you numerous times. Which makes me use all-caps to get the point across.

Sheesh, people seem so divided over who should be called what... Try putting it in these terms...

Gnostic theist: I believe there is a higher power, and I have knowledge of its existence.
Gnostic atheist: I do not believe there is a higher power, and I have knowledge of its non-existence.
Agnostic theist: I believe there is a higher power, but I do not have knowledge of its existence.
Agnostic atheist: I do not believe there is a higher power, but I do not have knowledge of its non-existence.

I rather dislike people claiming agnosticism as a middle ground between theism and atheism. You believe, or you don't believe. If you honestly don't know if you believe or not, then say it just like that: "I don't know." You don't need a word to label your own indecisiveness.

As for myself, I'm an agnostic atheist.

Well, there is something that the whole cookie has that the two halves don't and that is lost whenever you divide it. If this difference is not a part of the cookie you own, you do not have a whole cookie - you have two halves of a cookie. And surely, if you own something, you own a whole something; not just parts of that something?


In order to be a thing, it has to have clearly defined boundaries as to when and where it is and is not. It can't be and not be at the same time. Or, at least, that's what the trend of argument seems to have been so far.

Thus, if there is a... well, a theoretical thing (something that could potentially be a thing) that can both exist and not at the same time then it cannot be a thing.

My example for this was with the cookie in two halves. Putting them together gives you two halves of a cookie, and also at the same time a whole one. But we have already established that there is a difference between the halves and the whole; there are unique properties of the whole and halves that must allow them to be separate things. Thus, in order for it to be both things at once, it must simultaneously posess and not posess these properties.

Is that worded any better?

I see. In that case, though, I would interpret them as two different kinds of things, but still "something", and neither would be "nothing" , so I wouldn't regard them as "between something and nothing". Just my view, though.

You are. You just don't understand the difference between lack of belief and belief in lack. Even after having it explained to you numerous times. Which makes me use all-caps to get the point across.
i also fail to see the difference between passively and actively failing to believe in a god.

i also fail to see the difference between passively and actively failing to believe in a god.
Please tell me that's deadpan.

Please tell me that's deadpan.
a failure is a failure whether or not i try very hard to fail or i allow myself to fail.

the concept of a god, any god, requires a belief. if i actively demonstrate i do not hold belief in any god, that is a no. if i passively allow the god to not exist, the belief is still gone.

a failure is a failure whether or not i try very hard to fail or i allow myself to fail.

the concept of a god, any god, requires a belief. if i actively demonstrate i do not hold belief in any god, that is a no. if i passively allow the god to not exist, the belief is still gone.

Feels like we are slipping into the murky philosophical waters of "Kill or let die", my friends. :)

BAAWA,

So, to explore this idea, if:

i) I don't believe at this time that its within my ability to know if there is a God

and

ii) I therefore don't believe affirmatively that there is a God(s)

and

iii) I also don't affirmatively believe that there necessarily isn't one(any),

then conditions (ii) makes me an atheist, both necessarily and sufficiently?

If someone has condition (ii), do conditions (i) and (iii) impact their inclusion in the set of "atheists"? If I'm understanding your position, they do not, but I wish to be clear.

Feels like we are slipping into the murky philosophical waters of "Kill or let die", my friends. :)
no, i'm actually pulling my philosophy from Terry Pratchett :)

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)
You have no "logical" proof for your "arguments". Since you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God, then this thread is a waste of my time. Enjoy your circular arguments.

Ciao....

BAAWA,

So, to explore this idea, if:

i) I don't believe at this time that its within my ability to know if there is a God

and

ii) I therefore don't believe affirmatively that there is a God(s)

and

iii) I also don't affirmatively believe that there necessarily isn't one(any),

then conditions (ii) makes me an atheist, both necessarily and sufficiently?
Yes.


If someone has condition (ii), do conditions (i) and (iii) impact their inclusion in the set of "atheists"? If I'm understanding your position, they do not, but I wish to be clear.
They don't.

Logical proof against existance of gods is an inductive proof. Since no evidence of gods existing beyond imagination, the inductive reasoning is that they don't exist.

It's simple to disprove, just find some evidence that gods exist. Nothing been found in the last few millenia so, I'm not expecting it any time soon (or at all.)

Logical proof against existance of gods is an inductive proof. Since no evidence of gods existing beyond imagination, the inductive reasoning is that they don't exist.

It's simple to disprove, just find some evidence that gods exist. Nothing been found in the last few millenia so, I'm not expecting it any time soon (or at all.)
All you have proven is that you don't know. Lack of tangible evidence does not equal proof.

You have no "logical" proof for your "arguments". Since you cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God, then this thread is a waste of my time. Enjoy your circular arguments.

Ciao....
Can you ever prove a negitive?

Specialy when you atribute logical flaws like omnipotence to something or someone

Can you ever prove a negitive?

Specialy when you atribute logical flaws like omnipotence to something or someone
To which negative do you refer?

Logical proof against existance of gods is an inductive proof. Since no evidence of gods existing beyond imagination, the inductive reasoning is that they don't exist.

It's simple to disprove, just find some evidence that gods exist. Nothing been found in the last few millenia so, I'm not expecting it any time soon (or at all.)


You obviously have no understading of an inductive proof. Lack of information on something is not proof by induction, you have to show proof against over and over and over again plus show that this proof against will happen forever and ever. That is induction my friend, not a simple lack of proof.

To which negative do you refer?
The lack of gods existance

I mean you can make it extreemly un-likly

And you can disprove certian atributes or acts atributed to said god

But can you ever prove the non existance of something

The lack of gods existance

I mean you can make it extreemly un-likly

And you can disprove certian atributes or acts atributed to said god

But can you ever prove the non existance of something
I see proof of God's existence everywhere I go.

I see proof of God's existence everywhere I go.
Oh care to show us some?

Oh care to show us some?
It is all around you. It is called the universe.

There is also the spiritual experience, but it would be meaningless to you if you don't believe?

It is all around you. It is called the universe.

Funny. I see that as evidence God either doesn't exist or is a twisted bastard with a sick sense of humour.

And yes, I want to believe there is an all loving daddyfigure somewhere. But my wants cannot change facts :(

Funny. I see that as evidence God either doesn't exist or is a twisted bastard with a sick sense of humour.

And yes, I want to believe there is an all loving daddyfigure somewhere. But my wants cannot change facts :(
That is the beauty of free will. Everyone has a choice. Believe what you want to believe......I know I do.

And I was making a statement about your definition of agnosticism. Go back and re-read it.
And this, good sir, is where I call your bluff and dub thee Troll.

As much as I disagree with your opinions yet honour that disagreement, I cannot excuse your inability to form even so much as a decent response as mere ignorance. Taking the thing out of context destroys its meaning; I made that statement because I was pointing out that me saying that is what Agnosticism is is exactly the same as me calling anything I believe God and being branded a Theist for it. It's not true.

But despite me telling you three times that there was a context to that "definition", which was deliberately false, you didn't even read past the first line. And this is not a unique thing. Throughout this thread, you have not only failed to read between the lines but you have failed to read the fucking lines.

Nobody can be that blind, stubborn and ignorant accidentally.

You're doing it on purpose to get a rise out of all of us. And you have, by and large, succeeded. But the game's up.

Wow 42 pages.


(bump)

In my opinion...
Atheism the active faith or belief that there is no god

Anti-theism the active faith or belief that there is no god and attempts to prove that this is so.

Agnosticism a lack of belief, but no actual staunch faith in No God, simply a lack of belief and or understanding, also in my opinion includes the ideal that no religions have it right

no religions have it right
This is absolutely true in my mind.

To round it out, I would add:

There is a God, but "no religions have it right".

and anti-theists believe but hate the f*cker

We D&D nerds call them "Ur priests" ;)

Even though I dont believe in the afterlife, atheism does not mean no afterlife. it just means you do not believe in god/gods/deities/the daedra/your mom.

In my opinion...
Atheism the active faith or belief that there is no god

For the final time:

Strong atheism: belief in no god.

Weak atheism: no belief in god.

Strong atheism: faith based position.

Weak atheism: non-faith based position.

You cannot clasify atheism as a whole because there are two very different viewpoints encompassed by the term.

You obviously have no understading of an inductive proof. Lack of information on something is not proof by induction, you have to show proof against over and over and over again plus show that this proof against will happen forever and ever. That is induction my friend, not a simple lack of proof.

If every claimed piece of evidence fails, the obvious conclusion is disproof.

Sorry if I shortened the description to high school level but, I hardly have enough interest to respond.

The universe is evidence that we exist, if one wishes to use it as evidence for gods, show how it would be different without gods.

This thing hasn't died yet? And it hasn't been locked. How very strange.

In my opinion...
Atheism the active faith or belief that there is no god

So, you have active faith that there are no faeries, gnomes, elves, dragons, unicorns and all other legendary creatures and beings?

Active is not a description I would use since I don't have to regularily remind myself there are no gods.

If. But since you don't know right now, you don't have the belief that there is a god.

See how easy it is when you don't muck it up with emotive garbage?
I have the belief that there is a God, only if God exists. Prove God does or doesn't exist and the answer of whether or not I believe is answered.

All you have proven is that you don't know. Lack of tangible evidence does not equal proof.
But lack of evidence where evidence is expected is evidence of lack.

The lack of gods existance

I mean you can make it extreemly un-likly

And you can disprove certian atributes or acts atributed to said god

But can you ever prove the non existance of something
Sure; it's done all the time in math.

It is all around you. It is called the universe.
That's merely evidence that the universe exists, not of some deity.


There is also the spiritual experience, but it would be meaningless to you if you don't believe?
That's because you have it backward. You believe first and then assume that it exists. That's not the correct method.

And this, good sir, is where I call your bluff and dub thee Troll.
And this is where I don't care because you have no reading comprehension ability.

Re-read your own post. Then come back and apologize to me.

Wow 42 pages.


(bump)

In my opinion...
Atheism the active faith or belief that there is no god

Anti-theism the active faith or belief that there is no god and attempts to prove that this is so.

Agnosticism a lack of belief, but no actual staunch faith in No God, simply a lack of belief and or understanding, also in my opinion includes the ideal that no religions have it right
And we went through all this already in pages 1-10.

I have the belief that there is a God, only if God exists.
So you lack belief.

You can keep re-stating your idea, but it will just end up being that you lack belief. No matter how many times or how many versions of your idea you come up with, it will always be lacking belief.

religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
(Oxford Dictionary online (www.askoxford.com))
Atheism is a religion because it is a system of faith; the faith in the fact that there is no God or pantheon of Gods governing our lives or the earth around us. Religions are comforting, but as far as I have concluded, have little concrete fact to their claims.
PS. Jesus did exist though. But Judas was historically more important, for without his "betrayal" (Gospel of Judas claims he worked on Jesus' orders), Christ never would have been crucified and resurected. Without this, Christianity would never have grown beyond being a sect of Judaism.

Religions are comforting, but as far as I have concluded, have little concrete fact to their claims.
PS. Jesus did exist though.

There are no concrete facts to support your PS either ;)

religion

• noun 1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2 a particular system of faith and worship. 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.
(Oxford Dictionary online (www.askoxford.com))
Atheism is a religion because it is a system of faith;
No, it is not. Atheism is a lack of belief. It is not a system of belief.

Try again.

So you lack belief.

You can keep re-stating your idea, but it will just end up being that you lack belief. No matter how many times or how many versions of your idea you come up with, it will always be lacking belief.
Define the God I'm lacking belief in. You keep bringing me to a point I can't possibly have come to yet. If I believe in all things which exist and God exists, then I believe in God.

And this is where I don't care because you have no reading comprehension ability.

Re-read your own post. Then come back and apologize to me.
Okay then. I'll play your little game a little bit longer, since you seem to be having such fun with it.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have a request to make. Since my own reading comprehension is apparently an erroneous source, let's hear what you think. Feel free to agree with him on this; I won't take offense.

Here is the post in question (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10767056&postcount=478).

I maintain that it says that the author calling agnosticism something by his own standards and calling God something by his own standards are the same thing; equally invalid in the eyes of the person asking the question.

BAAWA here thinks the author is saying that he believes agnosticism is not professing a belief in God. He presumably thinks so because the author in the first line says "I can ... because that is what I call agnosticism."

The primary reason I do not believe this to be taken at face value is found, surprise surprise, in the rest of the post and in what followed. Firstly, within the context of the 3rd line, I think we can assume that the author is stating the two previous points in order to make the comment that they are of identical reasoning, since they were not in response to any question or previous discussion on the nature of agnosticism. In this case, the author could well be, and probably is, speaking hypothetically using himself as a device in a similar way to the old "what am I?" riddles. Secondly, the beginning of the fourth line shows that the Author expects the reader to believe that his definition of agnosticism is incorrect. If he had anticipated the possibility that the reader might not consider his basis of considering someone Agnostic to be flawed then he would not have said that he would be deemed wrong. This shows an expectant understanding that there is something invalid with the idea of Agnosticism he has expressed. Finally, of course, the response of his antagonist validates this second point in saying that his idea of Agnosticism is wrong; thereby confirming the understanding that the definition must be incorrect.

BAAWA may choose to give his own take on it, but there is mine.

Which is it?

Okay then. I'll play your little game a little bit longer, since you seem to be having such fun with it.
It's no game--you didn't understand what you wrote. Not my problem. So don't try to blame me for your own ineptness.

Define the God I'm lacking belief in.
Doesn't matter. You lack belief. You keep trying to weasel out of that fact, but it won't matter.

This thing hasn't died yet? And it hasn't been locked. How very strange.
I agree. :eek:

Doesn't matter. You lack belief. You keep trying to weasel out of that fact, but it won't matter.
Won't matter to whom? I'm starting not to care what matters to you.

Won't matter to whom?
To what you are.

To what you are.
Right. Agnostic.

That's merely evidence that the universe exists, not of some deity.

That's because you have it backward. You believe first and then assume that it exists. That's not the correct method.
OH, you have ALL the answers, therefore you must be right? Not!! All I can see from your post is that you lack faith, and that your belief system is limited by your own limited knowledge.

You can believe whatever you want. I believe in a power far greater than you or I. You can go ahead and knock yourself out trying to prove that my beliefs are wrong, but you will never suceed.

Won't matter to whom? I'm starting not to care what matters to you.
Well I certainly can agree with you on that.

Right. Agnostic.
No: atheist. Remember: agnosticism is a modifier. You can't just be agnostic.

OH, you have ALL the answers,
I have answers.


therefore you must be right? Not!! All I can see from your post is that you lack faith, and that your belief system
What is my belief system?


You can believe whatever you want. I believe in a power far greater than you or I.
Sucks to be you.


You can go ahead and knock yourself out trying to prove that my beliefs are wrong, but you will never suceed.
I'm not trying to do that. You're quite paranoid.

No: atheist. Remember: agnosticism is a modifier. You can't just be agnostic.
Points and laughs.



agnostic

Points and laughs.
Troll.

Troll.
You are the troll, yet I find you quite amusing. :p

No: atheist. Remember: agnosticism is a modifier. You can't just be agnostic.

*attempts to translate since there seems to be a miscommunication*

Baawa seems to say that there are only two possibilities: either you believe in a god/gods or you do not. You are therefor either a theist or an atheist; and someone who is "undecided" defaults to being an atheist.

Is this translation correct ?

You are the troll,
So says the one who believes in a magic spacie pixie.

Troll.
Goblin.

*attempts to translate since there seems to be a miscommunication*

Baawa seems to say that there are only two possibilities: either you believe in a god/gods or you do not. You are therefor either a theist or an atheist; and someone who is "undecided" defaults to being an atheist.

Is this translation correct ?
Yes. What other possibility is there? You either have this belief or do not. There is no middle.

This has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over during the course of this thread.

Here are two statements I do not agree with:
I believe in God.
I do not believe in God.

Now, you figure it out. I'm done.

Goblin.
Little Orphant Annie

(it's not a typo--search for it and you'll understand)

Here are two statements I do not agree with:
I believe in God.
I do not believe in God.

Now, you figure it out. I'm done.
Then you don't exist at all, because those are the only 2 choices.

This has been explained over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over during the course of this thread.
You must enjoy chasing your tail around and around. Getting dizzy yet?

You must enjoy chasing your tail around and around.
So says the person who quivers before some magic space pixie.

So says the one who believes in a magic spacie pixie.
Cute huh?

http://www.wtv-zone.com/emma/angels/gifs/moonfairy.jpg

:)

Here are two statements I do not agree with:
I believe in God.
I do not believe in God.

Now, you figure it out. I'm done.

Well, considering the only important statment is the first one, and you don't agree with it, Atheist, and you sound as thoug you don't think we can prove anything, so Agnostic Atheist.

So says the person who quivers before some magic space pixie.
Why should one quiver? What is there to fear?

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

Let's see, trained indian warrior prince from ancient era versus New York lawyer who's military experience is limited to ordering executions, the smart money is on the Buddha.

Then you don't exist at all, because those are the only 2 choices.
Drive to Texas but don't use a road to get there.

Why should one quiver?
"Awesome power" and all that rot.

Drive to Texas but don't use a road to get there.

Can we use an ATV?

"Awesome power" and all that rot.
And the reason to fear that "awesome power"?

Can we use an ATV?
Buicks only.

Drive to Texas but don't use a road to get there.
It would be more like "Drive to Texas but don't use any vehicle to get there and don't leave the place you're located."

It would be more like "Drive to Texas but don't use any vehicle to get there and don't leave the place you're located."
Whatever suits your fancy.

And the reason to fear that "awesome power"?
You tell me--you're the one who believes in it. But I've always been told by the silly theists that god has all this awesome power, and we'd best toe-the-line because of it.

Seems awfully silly to me.

You tell me--you're the one who believes in it. But I've always been told by the silly theists that god has all this awesome power, and we'd best toe-the-line because of it.

Seems awfully silly to me.
You mean that you can't enjoy life whilst toeing the line? There are a few simple rules to follow....no big deal.

Am I going to make mistakes....of course I am.......God made us human.

You mean that you can't enjoy life whilst toeing the line?
No.


Am I going to make mistakes....of course I am.......God made us human.
Then for god to punish us for making mistakes is heinous.

Drive to Texas but don't use a road to get there.

*flies to the LA-TX border*
*takes out a golf ball and a driver*
*drives into Texas*

No.
Well I certainly can. Guess you don't like a few simple rules huh?

Then for god to punish us for making mistakes is heinous.
Not if you believe and ask for forgiveness. It really is quite simple. No pain involved. :)

Well I certainly can. Guess you don't like a few simple rules huh?
They aren't simple.


Not if you believe and ask for forgiveness.
Forgiveness for being created human? No thanks. I have self-esteem.

They aren't simple.
They are simple. Perhaps you want to complicate them?

Forgiveness for being created human? No thanks. I have self-esteem.
Ahhhh, you have pride. Good for you. Certainly won't do any good for you when you are dead, and can certainly be harmful or deadly for you while you are alive.

They are simple. Perhaps you want to complicate them?
613 rules isn't complex? Such as the rule of after a woman has a child she is unclean for about 3 weeks and must spend that time outside of the camp/city/whatever?


Ahhhh, you have pride.
And you don't.

Sucks to be you.

Why do you consider yourself to be low, base, and generally not good? Why not have some pride in yourself for being human?

613 rules isn't complex? Such as the rule of after a woman has a child she is unclean for about 3 weeks and must spend that time outside of the camp/city/whatever?
That isn't part of the simple rules. That is a religious rule made up by some religion. There are 10 simple rules.



And you don't.

Sucks to be you.

Why do you consider yourself to be low, base, and generally not good? Why not have some pride in yourself for being human?
There are different levels of pride. I guess yours is ego based?

I actually feel quite good about myself and my station in life. I am enjoying life more than I thought I could.

That isn't part of the simple rules.
Yes, it is. There are more than just 10 commandments: there are 613.

Or didn't you know that?


There are different levels of pride. I guess yours is ego based?
Anything not ego-based is faked pride. Hijacked pride. False pride.

You mean that you can't enjoy life whilst toeing the line? There are a few simple rules to follow....no big deal.

It is if you do not see why you should follow those rules and where the person issuing them gets his/her authority. Being the creator does not give you the right to tell your free-willed creation what to do.

It is if you do not see why you should follow those rules and where the person issuing them gets his/her authority. Being the creator does not give you the right to tell your free-willed creation what to do.
Do you have a house? Do you make rules? Do you control the "free-willed creations" therein?

Do you have a house? Do you make rules? Do you control the "free-willed creations" therein?

To a degree. I for instance do not believe that being the creator of my (hypothetical) children would give me the right to abuse them. I would also hope that when they reach a certain age they would want me to explain my reasoning behind the houserules.

The Biblical God seems to disagree with me on both counts. He also does not offer a "leave if you disagree" option.

Yes, it is. There are more than just 10 commandments: there are 613.

Or didn't you know that?
There are only 10 Commandments that I understand.

Anything not ego-based is faked pride. Hijacked pride. False pride.
I disagree with you. One can have pride in themselves about their accomplishments, unless their accomplishments were obtained in a deceitful and unscrupulous manner.

To a degree. I for instance do not believe that being the creator of my (hypothetical) children would give me the right to abuse them. I would also hope that when they reach a certain age they would want me to explain my reasoning behind the houserules.
You see God as a punishing God then, and not a merciful one?

The Biblical God seems to disagree with me on both counts. He also does not offer a "leave if you disagree" option.
Anyone can follow their own path. God gave us all free will. Fairly simple and straighforward.

You see God as a punishing God then, and not a merciful one?

As both actually. But without knowing his justification for some of the punishing I can't help but consider him abusive - regardless how wonderful he is in other areas.

Anyone can follow their own path. God gave us all free will. Fairly simple and straighforward.

And what is the result of doing so ?
As your analogy implied the whole universe is Gods house. You cannot leave.

Do you have a house? Do you make rules? Do you control the "free-willed creations" therein?

Yes, but the question of my existence isn't particularly contraversial or under discussion.

There are only 10 Commandments that I understand.

Are you suggesting that the rest of the Bible besides the Decalogue is irrelevant? The Bible is packed with confusing, unfair regulations which DO make it hard to have a good time.

You see God as a punishing God then, and not a merciful one?

God is dichotomous. The old testament views God as smiting left, right, centre, and everyone standing next to left, right, and centre. new testament does not.

the commandments were written for another time, and are largely irrelevant in contemporary society.

One can have pride in themselves about their accomplishments, unless their accomplishments were obtained in a deceitful and unscrupulous manner.

Being proud about your accomplishments is egoistic.

Being proud about your accomplishments is egoistic.
it would be egotistical if one thought one was the only person capable of performing said accomplisment. pride in accomplishments is not egotistical if it is pride for the sake of pride, i.e., not bragging.

Do you have a house?
Doesn't your god know everything?

There are only 10 Commandments that I understand.
Then you don't know the OT. In the OT, there are 613 commandments.

You might want to brush up on the OT.


I disagree with you. One can have pride in themselves about their accomplishments,
That's ego.

it would be egotistical if one thought one was the only person capable of performing said accomplisment. pride in accomplishments is not egotistical if it is pride for the sake of pride, i.e., not bragging.

How do you define pride? I think exclusively of pride (in accomplishments) as thinking, "Hey, that thing I just achieved was good". Thinking how good you are is egoistic.

As both actually. But without knowing his justification for some of the punishing I can't help but consider him abusive - regardless how wonderful he is in other areas.
Let your conscious be your guide.

And what is the result of doing so ?
I would imagine that God will decide the results.

As your analogy implied the whole universe is Gods house. You cannot leave.
Some will leave. Some will stay and some will be in between.

Some will leave.

How do I leave the universe?

Yes, but the question of my existence isn't particularly contraversial or under discussion.
I think you missed the point?

Are you suggesting that the rest of the Bible besides the Decalogue is irrelevant? The Bible is packed with confusing, unfair regulations which DO make it hard to have a good time.
There are 10 vital rules. The rest are window dressings. I will do the best that I can, knowing full well that there will be times that I fail. That is when I ask for forgiveness.

I can enjoy life under those terms.

Yes.



They don't.

So, what is the term (and its compliment) for one's condition (in part iii) in actively believing there is no god?

How do you define pride? I think exclusively of pride (in accomplishments) as thinking, "Hey, that thing I just achieved was good". Thinking how good you are is egoistic.
i define egoism as the need for others to be proud of your achievement, and to recognize that you deserve to be proud of it. otherwise, one can simply be proud and satisfied at a job well done.

For instance, God looked upon God's work during Creation, and commented that It Was Good. Since Pride is a sin (albeit in the new testament), and God cannot be sinful, it follows that God's satisfaction in a job well done was not sinful pride.

That said, OT God made mistakes, so the argument is not entirely as linear as I have portrayed it.

Then you don't know the OT. In the OT, there are 613 commandments.

You might want to brush up on the OT.
I don't feel the need to do so.

That's ego.
This is ego:

2. inflated opinion of self: an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a feeling of superiority to other people

Not to be confused with appropriate self esteem.

This is pride:

1. satisfaction with self: the happy satisfied feeling somebody experiences when having or achieving something special that other people admire

3. feeling of superiority: a haughty attitude shown by somebody who believes, often unjustifiably, that he or she is better than others

This kind of pride is okay:

2. proper sense of own value: the correct level of respect for the importance and value of your personal character, life, efforts, or achievements

i define egoism as the need for others to be proud of your achievement, and to recognize that you deserve to be proud of it. otherwise, one can simply be proud and satisfied at a job well done.
Exactly.

For instance, God looked upon God's work during Creation, and commented that It Was Good. Since Pride is a sin (albeit in the new testament), and God cannot be sinful, it follows that God's satisfaction in a job well done was not sinful pride.
I agree.

No: atheist. Remember: agnosticism is a modifier. You can't just be agnostic.

If common usage of the term agnostic came to refer usually to one's view on dieties, could it develop into a standalone term?

Suppose person A doesn't believe in a God, and actively believes there is no God. He is "gnostic atheist"?

Person B doesn't believe in a God, but also doesn't actively believe there is no god. How is B labeled? "agnostic atheist"?

Doesn't your god know everything?
I quite imagine that He does. What does it have to do with me asking another human if they have a house? Or were you just asking a rhetorical question?

If common usage of the term agnostic came to refer usually to one's view on dieties, could it develop into a standalone term?

Suppose person A doesn't believe in a God, and actively believes there is no God. He is "gnostic atheist"?

Person B doesn't believe in a God, but also doesn't actively believe there is no god. How is B labeled? "agnostic atheist"?

If A's active belief mean " I think we can prove god doesn't exist" Then yes, Gnostic Atheist.

and B, if not actively believing mean "I don't think it can be proven one way or the other" Then also yes, Agnostic Atheist.

That isn't part of the simple rules. That is a religious rule made up by some religion. There are 10 simple rules.


Do the "10 simple rules" include "I am the Lord, your God, and you shall have no other Gods before me."? Sounds like a religious rule made up by some religion.

I have no problem if you want to cherry pick the words of your God that you like, and deprioritize the "window dressing", because its your religion and you can pursue it to your liking.

But your ten rules are not discluded from the set of "a religious rule made up by some religion".

If A's active belief mean " I think we can prove god doesn't exist" Then yes, Gnostic Atheist.

and B, if not actively believing mean "I don't think it can be proven one way or the other" Then also yes, Agnostic Atheist.

If the terms distinguishing atheist from theist is only the condition of active believe in the existence of some deity, what is the term distinguishing those on the basis of active disbelief in some diety?

Do the "10 simple rules" include "I am the Lord, your God, and you shall have no other Gods before me."? Sounds like a religious rule made up by some religion.

I have no problem if you want to cherry pick the words of your God that you like, and deprioritize the "window dressing", because its your religion and you can pursue it to your liking.

But your ten rules are not discluded from the set of "a religious rule made up by some religion".
in fact there are 613 commandments, because 613 is a nice magical number in the Hebrew Torah, so whomever was coming up with the rules made up a lot to fill in the quota.

the commandments were largely instituted for health and safety reasons, and the best way to get people to listen to the rules is to say they came from God.

If the terms distinguishing atheist from theist is only the condition of active believe in the existence of some deity, what is the term distinguishing those on the basis of active disbelief in some diety?

If I read that right; nothing really, unless you want to bring "weak Atheism" and "strong Atheism" into the discussion, that part's up to you.

For instance, God looked upon God's work during Creation, and commented that It Was Good. Since Pride is a sin (albeit in the new testament), and God cannot be sinful, it follows that God's satisfaction in a job well done was not sinful pride.

This line of reasoning seems to imply only that God is excused, by axiom, from abiding by its own rules.

So, if God orders the death of the firstborn, its not murder, not because the act itself is not murderous, but only because God cannot be regarded as doing anything wrong. Sort of like nobles being exempt from arrest and charge by commoners.

in fact there are 613 commandments, because 613 is a nice magical number in the Hebrew Torah, so whomever was coming up with the rules made up a lot to fill in the quota.

the commandments were largely instituted for health and safety reasons, and the best way to get people to listen to the rules is to say they came from God.

Well, I frankly think this dynamic essentially is religion. For good or ill, to get people to think and behave as you want, say the rules came from God. I've noticed its markedly effective with many people here.

If I read that right; nothing really, unless you want to bring "weak Atheism" and "strong Atheism" into the discussion, that part's up to you.

I see; that seems reasonable.

While on this thread I have previously advocated a greater precision in language, I think in practice that a bit more leeway should be allowed for.

At the very least, I wish there could be more "Well, I don't agree with your usage, but I'll accept it here for purposes of discussion now that I understand your definition". Either side could do it and move forward, but there seems to be more antagonism then anything else.

Do the "10 simple rules" include "I am the Lord, your God, and you shall have no other Gods before me."? Sounds like a religious rule made up by some religion.

I have no problem if you want to cherry pick the words of your God that you like, and deprioritize the "window dressing", because its your religion and you can pursue it to your liking.

But your ten rules are not discluded from the set of "a religious rule made up by some religion".
IMHO, the 10 simple rules are separate and apart from all the various religious interpretations.

If you believe that the Commandments were "made up" by some religious group, I would disagree.

i personally believe in a god
Einstein and Aristotle two great geniusus believed in a god but just didnt no how it worked
they thought that there has to be something out there to hold things together
i even heard that before darwin died he became christian

I must be off now. May your God go with you. If you do not have a God, may you find Him now.

Happy Easter!!

Well, I frankly think this dynamic essentially is religion. For good or ill, to get people to think and behave as you want, say the rules came from God. I've noticed its markedly effective with many people here.
yes. for instance, the laws of kashrut (kosher-ness) stem from rules that keep nomads healthy. shellfish make you sick. pigs aren't good on the move. belief in god is what keeps these laws respected. institutions that do not require such observance therefore have no religious affiliation, such as weddings, which are purely civil affairs.

IMHO, the 10 simple rules are separate and apart from all the various religious interpretations.

If you believe that the Commandments were "made up" by some religious group, I would disagree.

I know you've mentioned you eschew a rigorous examination of the Old Testament, but I honestly feel it necessarily introduces itself here.

The "10 simple rules" were said to have been delivered by Moses, from God. How do you separate them from the larger body of Mosaic Law in veracity (since you clearly separate them in emphasis by personal inclination)?

For example, the prohibition against worshipping graven images; how do you address such a rule outside of a religious interpretation?

I must be off now. May your God go with you. If you do not have a God, may you find Him now.

Happy Easter!!

I couldn't agree more.

Alleluia! He is Risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!

I see; that seems reasonable.

While on this thread I have previously advocated a greater precision in language, I think in practice that a bit more leeway should be allowed for.

At the very least, I wish there could be more "Well, I don't agree with your usage, but I'll accept it here for purposes of discussion now that I understand your definition". Either side could do it and move forward, but there seems to be more antagonism then anything else.

Eh, sure...thinking back I'm not totally sure why it was that important...But I do like my chart. :D

yes. for instance, the laws of kashrut (kosher-ness) stem from rules that keep nomads healthy. shellfish make you sick. pigs aren't good on the move. belief in god is what keeps these laws respected. institutions that do not require such observance therefore have no religious affiliation, such as weddings, which are purely civil affairs.

So, were a populace to be trained, as a matter of broad cultural practice, in critical reasoning, research, and a general respect for social contract, such a society may find its religions having fewer formalized prohibitions/exhortations?

Eh, sure...thinking back I'm not totally sure why it was that important...But I do like my chart. :D

Some folks are very visual; there's a great deal to be said (or shown, rather) for charts. They often convey more information, more quickly.

This line of reasoning seems to imply only that God is excused, by axiom, from abiding by its own rules.

So, if God orders the death of the firstborn, its not murder, not because the act itself is not murderous, but only because God cannot be regarded as doing anything wrong. Sort of like nobles being exempt from arrest and charge by commoners.
OT God made mistakes, and the 10th plague is certainly among them I think. Like I said though, OT God smites all the time, but does so for the good of the many, to protect God's people. Unfortunately, this requires belief that only the jews were God's people.

So, were a populace to be trained, as a matter of broad cultural practice, in critical reasoning, research, and a general respect for social contract, such a society may find its religions having fewer formalized prohibitions/exhortations?
no. logic and morality are nothing next to the promise of a good Smiting.

Some folks are very visual; there's a great deal to be said (or shown, rather) for charts. They often convey more information, more quickly.

I suppose....Except the fill tool wasn't working, I wanted to fill in the bars, so it'd look continuous-y, but I got impatient so I just put it up as is I guess.

OT God made mistakes, and the 10th plague is certainly among them I think. Like I said though, OT God smites all the time, but does so for the good of the many, to protect God's people. Unfortunately, this requires belief that only the jews were God's people.

So, by this view, one could not believe that God makes no mistakes, assuming there is only one God.

On this point, I think one of the marketing decisions that's been good for Christianity's bottom line is its voracious recruiting. A religion that says "us and only us, and its hard to join us" seems like it would experience a more moderate revenue growth.

no. logic and morality are nothing next to the promise of a good Smiting.

But what if they don't buy into the threat of the smiting?

It seems like, with acumen and education, one could be trusted to excercise reasonable communal interest, particularly when it can be shown to benefit the self.

So, by this view, one could not believe that God makes no mistakes, assuming there is only one God.
one could not believe that God makes no mistakes, because God specifically expresses regret for some of God's actions, for instance the covenant following the Flood.

On this point, I think one of the marketing decisions that's been good for Christianity's bottom line is its voracious recruiting. A religion that says "us and only us, and its hard to join us" seems like it would experience a more moderate revenue growth.

that and the fact that you can sin and ask for forgiveness all you like. one of my favourite dark ages stories, is of a monk traveling from village to village, selling tokens to be absolved of one's next sin (an idea of the pope to finance a crusade). A knight approaches the monk and asks to buy a token. Receiving the token, he then robs the monk of all his money. The monk complains and tells the knight he'll be forever damned, but the Knight points out that he has already been absolved of the sin!

But what if they don't buy into the threat of the smiting?

It seems like, with acumen and education, one could be trusted to excercise reasonable communal interest, particularly when it can be shown to benefit the self.
it is a recent development in the world that large numbers of people don't believe in the smiting. lots of theists like to point out that Darwin believed in God. This is true, but what they don't mention is that he believed in God simply because he assumed God exists, like all Victorians did.

In very poor societies, where life sucks, but one is promised inheritance of the earth for being meek, there is great cause to believe both in God, and smitings. These also happen to peasants on a regular basis, since any kind of sickness/accident can be attributed to God.

it is a recent development in the world that large numbers of people don't believe in the smiting. lots of theists like to point out that Darwin believed in God. This is true, but what they don't mention is that he believed in God simply because he assumed God exists, like all Victorians did.

In very poor societies, where life sucks, but one is promised inheritance of the earth for being meek, there is great cause to believe both in God, and smitings. These also happen to peasants on a regular basis, since any kind of sickness/accident can be attributed to God.

Its terrible to say, but it almost seems that some societies, particularly those with a large underclass, would pragmatically benefit from a practice of theism among the poor, and a class of quiet athiests making decisions using less supernatural algorithms.

Its terrible to say, but it almost seems that some societies, particularly those with a large underclass, would pragmatically benefit from a practice of theism among the poor, and a class of quiet athiests making decisions using less supernatural algorithms.
it is not coincidence that religious leaders are often political leaders in poor countries. Napoleon commented that you can't get a man to die for a flag, or for a general, you have to speak to his soul (or somesuch). the most effective forms of controling the masses are those the masses think they came up with on their own (thx to half-hidden (i think) for that one, earlier in the thread). religion is a wonderful tool for power, but usually results in dictatorships.

it is not coincidence that religious leaders are often political leaders in poor countries. Napoleon commented that you can't get a man to die for a flag, or for a general, you have to speak to his soul (or somesuch). the most effective forms of controling the masses are those the masses think they came up with on their own (thx to half-hidden (i think) for that one, earlier in the thread). religion is a wonderful tool for power, but usually results in dictatorships.

I wonder if Tom Cruise will save us from the Body Thetans...

I wonder if Tom Cruise will save us from the Body Thetans...
that's a mission: impossible.

ouch, sorry

So, what is the term (and its compliment) for one's condition (in part iii) in actively believing there is no god?
Atheist.

I don't feel the need to do so.
Then you don't feel the need to know what you're talking about.


This is ego:

2. inflated opinion of self: an exaggerated sense of self-importance and a feeling of superiority to other people
No, that's arrogance, not ego.

Do try to learn the proper definitions of words.

If common usage of the term agnostic came to refer usually to one's view on dieties, could it develop into a standalone term?
It could, but it would be wrong.


Suppose person A doesn't believe in a God, and actively believes there is no God. He is "gnostic atheist"?
He's an atheist.


Person B doesn't believe in a God, but also doesn't actively believe there is no god. How is B labeled? "agnostic atheist"?
Atheist.

I quite imagine that He does [know everything].
Then we have no free will. And as such, the punishment we receive from your god (assuming for the sake of argument that it exists) is simply the torture inflicted upon us by a sado-narcissistic being.

it is a recent development in the world that large numbers of people don't believe in the smiting. lots of theists like to point out that Darwin believed in God. This is true, but what they don't mention is that he believed in God simply because he assumed God exists, like all Victorians did.
He also was in the seminary, and on sabbatical, as it were, on his voyage on the Beagle.

Atheist.

Sorry, I should phrase the question better.

If we say that theist/atheist is dependent solely on the condition of one's belief that there is a god,


then what term is dependent solely on the condition of one's belief that there is no god?

For example, Bob and Dave do not believe there is a God.

Bob believes actively that there is no God, and excludes the possibility of God.

Dave, while not believing in God, does not believe there necessarily isn't one, and does not exclude the possibility of God.

What term distinguishes Bob from Dave?

Sorry, I should phrase the question better.

If we say that theist/atheist is dependent solely on the condition of one's belief that there is a god,


then what term is dependent solely on the condition of one's belief that there is no god?
There isn't one.


For example, Bob and Dave do not believe there is a God.

Bob believes actively that there is no God, and excludes the possibility of God.

Dave, while not believing in God, does not believe there necessarily isn't one, and does not exclude the possibility of God.

What term distinguishes Bob from Dave?
There isn't one.

There isn't one.

To clarify a bit look at it this way Saint. Bob doesn't believe there isn't a god and because of that he also lacks a belief in a god. Dave doesn't discount the possibility of a god but he also lacks a belief in god. It all hinges on the lack of belief for an agnostic. If you are agnostic but believe there is something out there your an agnostic theist. If your agnostic and don't believe in anything you lack a belief in god and fit under the atheist label and are an agnostic atheist.

There isn't one.



There isn't one.

Could the modifier "agnostic" be applied to "athiest" to make the distinction, and over time, agnostic come on its own to imply the difference?

I realize you feel that would be wrong, but if language were a fluid, changing thing whose pedantic aspects were inexorably eroded by the simple fact of common usage, could "agnostic" eventually come to be commonly understood this way?

Could the modifier "agnostic" be applied to "athiest" to make the distinction, and over time, agnostic come on its own to imply the difference?
Not if the term "agnostic" is to be used correctly.


I realize you feel that would be wrong, but if language were a fluid, changing thing whose pedantic aspects were inexorably eroded by the simple fact of common usage, could "agnostic" eventually come to be commonly understood this way?
It could, but it would still be wrong, regardless.

To clarify a bit look at it this way Saint. Bob doesn't believe there isn't a god and because of that he also lacks a belief in a god. Dave doesn't discount the possibility of a god but he also lacks a belief in god. It all hinges on the lack of belief for an agnostic. If you are agnostic but believe there is something out there your an agnostic atheist. If your agnostic and don't believe in anything you lack a belief in god and fit under the atheist label and are an agnostic atheist.

(bolding added by SC)

Wait, are you drawing a constrast here? Should the bolded be the same term? I apologize, I'm not following.