NationStates Jolt Archive

For almost 7 years now, I've considered myself an agnostic as opposed to an atheist until I read an interesting article by Paul N. Tobin, who more eloquently explains why this is merely a difference of political correctness.

Now, myself, I despise all things pc, as I find them to be inherently more prejudicial than I would like to be considered, so I immediately changed that little tick in my mind.

This thread is meant to offer explanations to those who wish them as to why somebody would reject the fullness of Christ's Gospel, in favor of Muhammed's Holy Words, Jewish dogma, The poetry of the Baghavad Gita, or whichever faith or lack thereof.

In other words, it's a thread about Conversions and de-Conversions.

Welcome.

The Difference between Athiest and Agnostic (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/atheistdefine.html)

That page won't load... :(

Anyway, I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school. But I did turn out agnostic, which I personally don't regard as pc.
My bf is atheist, meaning he is convinced that there is no god and has very little patience with people who think there might be.
In my case it's simply that I just don't care if there's a god or not. I don't see it as making any difference at all to my life. So I wouldn't really go and call myself atheist, that doesn't describe my belief. Or rather lack thereof.

Who is Paul N. Tobin to define what is and what is not atheism?

For almost 7 years now, I've considered myself an agnostic as opposed to an atheist until I read an interesting article by Paul N. Tobin, who more eloquently explains why this is merely a difference of political correctness.

Now, myself, I despise all things pc, as I find them to be inherently more prejudicial than I would like to be considered, so I immediately changed that little tick in my mind.

This thread is meant to offer explanations to those who wish them as to why somebody would reject the fullness of Christ's Gospel, in favor of Muhammed's Holy Words, Jewish dogma, The poetry of the Baghavad Gita, or whichever faith or lack thereof.

In other words, it's a thread about Conversions and de-Conversions.

Welcome.

The Difference between Athiest and Agnostic (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/atheistdefine.html)

Your explanation to why you are an atheist is that, despite a seven year commitment to an idea, you immediately changed it upon encountering a primarily semantic argument in an internet article written by a mildly persuasive speaker?

You could've just written "Because I am fickle." and saved us some time.

:P

Who is Paul N. Tobin to define what is and what is not atheism?

I don't know. Atheist pope?

Who is Paul N. Tobin to define what is and what is not atheism?

its a pretty simple concept.

Do you, or do you not believe in God?

If you believe god does not exist....your an atheist.

Pretty simple, eh?

That page won't load... :(

Anyway, I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school. But I did turn out agnostic, which I personally don't regard as pc.
My bf is atheist, meaning he is convinced that there is no god and has very little patience with people who think there might be.
In my case it's simply that I just don't care if there's a god or not. I don't see it as making any difference at all to my life. So I wouldn't really go and call myself atheist, that doesn't describe my belief. Or rather lack thereof.

It loaded fine for me. Perhaps the OP could e-mail you the text of it if you continue to have problems.

In any case, I'm in agreement with you that agnosticism is hardly a politically correct notion, though I also agree Mr. Tobin's article that it is an epistemological choice and not a choice of belief. It is not, in short, a middle position between atheism and theism.

I do not mean that as being demeaning to agnosticism or agnostics, especially considering that I would class myself as an agnostic theist.

New tactic: Uploading portions of the page to quotes.

Definition of Atheism
The Webster's New World College Dictionary (Macmillan 1996) defines atheism as "the belief that there is no God or a denial that God or gods exist." [1] In contrast it gives agnosticism as the belief "that the human mind cannot know whether there is a God or an ultimate cause." [2]

This indeed is how many non atheists understand the terms. Unfortunately, the definition of atheism given in Webster’s, and in most dictionaries, is incorrect. Most atheists do not define atheism that way. A proper understanding of the etymology of the word provides the actual meaning. As Michael Martin, Professor of Philosophy at Boston University explains:

In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god". From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of a belief in God. [3]
[Emphasis added]



Defined in this way, theism and atheism are mutually exclusive and, more importantly with respect to agnosticism, collectively exhaustive. As another atheist philosopher, George H. Smith explains:

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...."Atheism" is a privative term, a term of negation, indicating the opposite of theism...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. [4]
[Emphasis added]



Thus most atheists define atheism as being without belief in theism. Therefore if one is not a theist, one is then, by definition, an atheist! There is no middle ground.

Agnosticism
Where does all this leave the agnostic then? The word was first coined by Thomas H. Huxley (1825-1895) in 1869. This was how he defined it:

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates...it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you without regard to any other considerations. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. [5]

Note again how different the original definition of agnosticism is from the dictionary definition. To Huxley, agnosticism is an epistemological paradigm by which one can only affirm acceptance or adherence to a theory or belief only if it can be demonstrated to be true. Thus applying this concept to theism, if one is unable to reach a certain conclusion as to the existence of God, one cannot then have any belief in God-one is thus, by definition, an atheist! Huxley himself would fall under such a category.

However it must be admitted that many people who call themselves agnostics do use the term in the meaning that is in agreement the dictionary definition: that of saying that we simply cannot know whether there is a God or not. Such a person may be either a theist and atheist. Thus someone may claim that God is "unknowable" but nevertheless asserts that having faith will allow one to make the leap into the enlightenment of "eternal knowledge"! This is exactly the position taken by the Danish theologian Siren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). [6] Thus Kierkegaard position is that of theistic agnosticism.

Thus the label "agnostic" vis-à-vis the existence of God is not a very helpful one. As Robert Flint in his book Agnosticism (1903) succinctly points out:

[Agnosticism is] properly a theory about knowledge, not about religion. A theist and a Christian may be an agnostic; an atheist may not be an agnostic. An atheist may deny that there is a God, and in this case his atheism is dogmatic and not agnostic. Or he may refuse to acknowledge that there is a God simply on the ground that he perceives no evidence for his existence and finds arguments which have been advanced in proof of it invalid. In this case his atheism is critical, not agnostic. The atheist may be, and not infrequently is, an agnostic.[7]

Theism, Atheism and the Burden of Proof
The definition of atheism in its broadest form as the absence of belief in God has important implications with respect to who holds the burden of proof. If one makes a positive assertion, then the obligation is on that person to present to evidence for his case. Some theists, hoping to cover the weakness of the positive case for God's existence tried to shift the burden of proof onto the atheist. By defining atheism as a rival belief to theism-i.e. the belief that there is no God or gods-they then argue that if the atheist cannot provide positive proof that God (or any type of supernatural first cause) does not exist then they are in no better position than theist. Indeed it is even claimed that being an atheist requires even more faith than a theist since the former has to believe he knows everything before he can know for certain that God does not exist.

Note however that by properly defining atheism as "without belief in theism", this problem does not arise. As George H. Smith explained:

When the atheist is seen as a person who lacks belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to "prove" anything. The atheist qua atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation "atheist" tells us , not what he believes to be true, but what he does not believe to be true. If others wish for him to accept the existence of a god, it is their responsibility to argue for the truth of theism-but the atheist is not similarly required to argue for the truth of atheism. [8]

Perhaps an analogy may help here. Suppose someone comes up to you and say "I believe there are three headed flying snakes in Jupiter. If you cannot prove me wrong, then my belief is as valid as yours." You may perhaps point out to this person that what we know of reptilian biology and of the Jovian atmosphere, makes it very unlikely that snakes - regardless of how many heads they have - could survive in such an environment. However one could easily imagine the retort from the believer in the Jovian triune reptile, "Ha! You are simply asserting your non-belief without any proof. Until you can built a spacecraft which can scan every cubic inch of the Jovian planet, I consider your position to be irrational." Furthermore he could argue that these snakes are such that they are simply undetectable by any known instrument made by man. Thus even if you did send a spacecraft to Jupiter and manage to (impossibly) scan the whole volume of the planet, he could still assert that that does not prove the three headed, invisible, undetectable-by-any-instrument, flying snakes do not exist. You will finally reach a position of telling him, "How do you know that such an invisible, undetectable animal exists on Jupiter, if it is indeed invisible and undetectable?" In other words, he has to provide proof before you would even consider the case any further.

Removed from any emotional attachment to the argument one can easily see that in this specific case the believer's position is absurd. The underlying reason is simple: anyone could make an absurd or extraordinary claim. It's easy, all they have to do is to say it. To prove these claims wrong would take a great amount of effort and often times (as in the claims of an undetectable, invisible snake in Jupiter above) impossible. Clearly then, the burden of proof has to fall on the party making the positive claim.

Positive and Negative Atheism
Most philosophers further classify atheism into two categories: negative and positive atheism.

Negative atheism, or weak form atheism, is simply atheism in its most general form-that of not having any belief in a God or gods. Thus with respect to the truth of theism, all the negative atheist needs to do is to point out that all the classical philosophical arguments for God existence and the modern attempts to resuscitate them have failed. Similarly pseudo-scientific attempts such as intelligent design creationism and more folksy arguments from the beauty of nature and better health are completely unconvincing.

Positive atheism, or strong form atheism, is the positive belief that a God or gods do not exist. Now, as we have argued in the section above, the positive atheist does need to provide proof of his belief. Here the positive atheist normally specifies in advance exactly what concept of God is being positively rejected as non existing. This is important since there are countless ways in which a God or gods may be defined. The aloof God of the Deist is different from the "roll-up-your-sleeves" God of the Old Testament, which is in turn different from the anthropomorphic gods of the Greek pantheon. Different kinds of evidence would be required to prove such a God or gods do not exist.

I am a positive atheist with respect to the Christian God. The evidence for his non-existence lies primarily in the existence of evil and its incompatibility with an omniscient, omnipotent and omni benevolent deity (all knowing, all powerful and all good God). Furthermore the attributes of this God as defined by Christian theologians leads to logical contradictions.

It is important to note here that negative and positive atheism are not necessarily mutually exclusive positions. Thus while I am a positive atheist with respect to the known conceptions of gods of the world, I am a negative atheist with forms of gods which have yet to be thought up by future theists. After all how can I disprove something which have not even been thought up yet? This, incidentally, answers criticism made by some theists that to be an atheist one needs to "know everything". One does not need to "know everything" to be an atheist, since one can be a "weak form atheist" with respect to gods which have not yet been dreamt of in our philosophy. [9]
In the seventeenth century the French mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal (1623- 1663) put forward a wager in his Pensees (Thoughts):

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having, neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is ... you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then without hesitation that he is.[1]

Pascal's wager sounds deceptively simple. Many a religious person finds such a call attractive: one only needs to believe without considering the evidence and one would immediately be in a better position than that of the non-believer. After all, they say, if I believe and then it turns out to be true I get to enjoy heavenly bliss; but if my belief turns out to be false, and there is no God, then when I die, I lose nothing. An atheist, the religious person may continue, if he turns out to be wrong will suffer an eternity of torment. If the atheist turns out to be right then it is only equal to the believer's "worst case." Obviously then, the believer will say, you must wager on the side of belief.

But Pascal's argument is seriously flawed. The religious environment that Pascal lived in was simple. Belief and disbelief only boiled down to two choices: Roman Catholicism and atheism. With a finite choice, his argument would be sound. But on Pascal's own premise that God is infinitely incomprehensible, then in theory, there would be an infinite number of possible theologies about God, all of which are equally probable.

First, let us look at the more obvious possibilities we know of today - possibilities that were either unknown to, or ignored by, Pascal. In the Calvinistic theological doctrine of predestination, it makes no difference what one chooses to believe since, in the final analysis, who actually gets rewarded is an arbitrary choice of God. Furthermore we know of many more gods of many different religions, all of which have different schemes of rewards and punishments. Given that there are more than 2,500 gods known to man [2], and given Pascal's own assumptions that one cannot comprehend God (or gods), then it follows that, even the best case scenario (i.e. that God exists and that one of the known Gods and theologies happen to be the correct one) the chances of making a successful choice is less than one in 2,500.

Second, Pascal's negative theology does not exclude the possibility that the true God and true theology is not one that is currently known to the world. For instance it is possible to think of a God who rewards, say, only those who purposely step on sidewalk cracks. This sounds absurd, but given the premise that we cannot understand God, this possible theology cannot be dismissed. In such a case, the choice of what God to believe would be irrelevant as one would be rewarded on a premise totally distinct from what one actually believes. Furthermore as many atheist philosophers have pointed out, it is also possible to conceive of a deity who rewards intellectual honesty, a God who rewards atheists with eternal bliss simply because they dared to follow where the evidence leads - that given the available evidence, no God exists! Finally we should also note that given Pascal's premise, it is possible to conceive of a God who is evil and who punishes the good and rewards the evil. [3]

Thus Pascal's call for us not to consider the evidence but to simply believe on prudential grounds fails. As the atheist philosopher, J.L. Mackie wrote:

Once the full range of such possibilities is taken into account, Pascal's argument from comparative expectations falls to the ground. The cultivation of non-rational belief is not even practically reasonable. [4]

This website then, is a call for the rejection of Pascal's wager. A call for all of us to use our reason to decide whether the central claims of Christianity are true or false. It is also a reminder that our choices have a moral dimension that cannot be ignored.

We have seen in this website that the Christian claim of a special status of the Bible is untenable. We have also seen that many important details about Jesus' life given in the gospels are either false or historically suspect. And we will examine Christian Theology as it is and show that it is a confused irrational system. The balance of evidence, far from being inconclusive, shows that the major teachings and claims of Christianity are false. These parts show that one of the main assumptions of Pascal's wager, that we cannot know the truth or falsity or religious claims and are thus forced to make a wager, is false.

As we have mentioned above, there is a moral dimension to Pascal's wager. We have seen in this website that Christianity, in all its forms - Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Protestantism and the Fringe Churches - has inflicted tremendous harm on civilization. When one makes a wager to believe, then one becomes morally responsible for the propagation of suffering that Christianity have been bringing and will continue to bring upon the world.

The Roman Catholic Church continues its horrible track record of bringing misery to its followers and to non-Catholics. It's illogical stance on contraception leads to millions of unwanted pregnancies and, indirectly, to many thousands maternal and infant deaths. It also means that poor third world countries with Catholic majorities, such as the Philippines and Brazil, continue to be burdened by overpopulation, poverty, hunger and disease. It is widely recognized that the opposition of the Catholic Church to the use of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS is at least partially responsible for the high rate of new infections in Africa and elsewhere. Its irrational position on this has led to the pronouncement that if a husband infected with HIV/AIDS wants a normal conjugal relationship with his wife, he should do so without a condom. Life takes a back seat to theological nonsense. The moribund structure of the Church also allows for the horrendously high number of sex abuse committed by its clergy on innocent young Catholics. The recently departed pope, John Paul II bears a huge responsibility for this continuing infliction of suffering on humankind.

The Fundamentalist Protestant churches inflict their own brand of horror on the world. With scientific creationism and intelligent design creationism, they are trying to bring science, and the world, back into the dark ages where faith and ignorance reign supreme. The fundamental irrationalism of this branch of Christianity has meant that many of the flock have been fleeced by TV evangelists, some of whose have sexual escapades comparable to the infamous Pope Alexander VI. This irrationalism breeds belief in the efficacy of faith healing to the detriment, and death, of many. Needless to say, fundamentalism breeds intolerance.

The fundamentalists have joined forces with the Catholic Church in their absolutist opposition to abortion, leading the current fundamentalist leaning U.S. government to withhold funds from organizations that aid poor women in third world countries. It has been estimated that almost 5,000 women needlessly die each year due to this misnamed "culture of life" policy.

This moral responsibility for all these also partially falls on the so-called liberal Christians. While this group of Christians may do little harm directly, they provide the raw material (in "lukewarm" believers who are already positively disposed towards Christianity) from which fundamentalism builds itself. Furthermore by putting a "respectable" veneer on religious discourse, they prevent a much needed and long overdue logical, philosophical and scientific demolition of religious claims - since to even attempt to question religion per se is considered politically incorrect. As Sam Harris rightly noted in his book The End of Faith:

Religious moderates are, in a large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.[5]

It is time for liberal Christians to think through their belief system, whether applying words which lose all sense of their normal meaning just to keep some semblance of the religious life, is really worth the harm they indirectly help inflict on the world.

Furthermore amidst all this proven negative effects of Christianity, it is hard to see if there is much good that comes out of it. Some believers have tried to argue that Christians lead healthier lives than non-Christians, but the studies cited have been shown to be seriously flawed. Furthermore it is debatable whether Christianity actually makes a person moral. History seems to tell us otherwise. Many of the popes throughout history had been morally deficient human beings; so too were many of the church fathers, Protestant reformers and some modern evangelical preachers. For they preached intolerance and hate and sometimes actively encouraged the torture and murders of innocent people. Indeed recent sociological studies have shown that there is a negative correlation between religiosity and morality.

The world today, perhaps more than ever, is in need of our undivided, moral and rational, attention. The problems of the world, both natural and man-made are many: famine, floods, the greenhouse effect, the ozone hole and the irreversible extinction of countless species of plants and animals. The only chance the world has is for humankind to understand that this world is all we have, there is no other, no afterlife. Only we can solve the world's problems. The solutions for the problems of the world and for life in general are not to be found in Christianity. Christianity, in fact, is part of the problem.

On both intellectual and moral grounds the only course for a person to take is the rejection of Pascal's wager.

And, for the record, the article in question merely brought to light something I've been rolling around for some time. That being, I've considered myself agnostic because it lends itself to less issues of moral character in debates with Fundamentalist Christians, of which there are many in my place of work. So, I was agnostic for the convenience of it, or a closet atheist.

i became an atheist over time as i realized that the gospels arent true and that therefore christianity isnt true. over time i gradually lost my superstitious fear that id get caught in pascal's wager.

i certainly cant pick up someone else's false belief-- its not as if buddhism is TRUE, for example, so that leaves me the option of making something up or just acknowledging that there IS no truth in religion and that atheism makes the best sense.

That bastard stole all my arguments.

its a pretty simple concept.

Do you, or do you not believe in God?



I don't know. Rather not answer 'til I get some proof one way or another. Answer is in the mail. Waiting for the rain to stop so I can get down to the library and do some research. I'll settle for agnostic until then.

<Snip>To be agnostic is to hold the belief that something is beyond falsification and/or observation. So you might be, but nothing in your post indicates you are. On the other hand, to be atheist is not to hold belief in divinity. Which you apparently don't, as you can't be arsed to contemplate it.

So I'm not entirely sure why you'd call yourself agnostic?

I'm an agnostic atheist myself. I have no reason to believe in divinity, nor do I think any such reason would be obtainable by beings in this universe. My wife's an agnostic Muslim.

And I hate to do this, but I've got to post and run, my shift starts in a half hour and I won't get back until around 11:30 GMT, so if you have any questions for me, I'll respond to them then.

Edit:
Paul N. Tobin is a far better writer than I on this particular subject, with more concise evidence than I have at my disposal, better bibliography, better sources.....His word is not gold, but it is based around evidence that is quite good, if not beyond reproach, than close. As for his character, he could be anybody with the presence of mind to put up a well designed argument on the internet. As I said, I found his page and was intrigued by his style and substance.

I don't know. Atheist pope?I thought you were the pope?

I don't know. Rather not answer 'til I get some proof one way or another. Answer is in the mail. Waiting for the rain to stop so I can get down to the library and do some research. I'll settle for agnostic until then.

Were you the one I talked about this with before? I believe the conclusion was, you're either theist or atheist, we just don't know which?

Does BAAWA have a new incarnation around these parts? He'd like this thread.

I'm a Christian. If you want to take a stand against my faith because you don't like being PC, that's fine by me. I'm sure God will continue to love you just the same.

Were you the one I talked about this with before? I believe the conclusion was, you're either theist or atheist, we just don't know which?

LOL, I love that idea. Yes. It really is a great way to describe myself.

its a pretty simple concept.

Do you, or do you not believe in God?

If you believe god does not exist....your an atheist.

Pretty simple, eh?
And what if you do no believe in God, as opposed to believing there is no God?
New tactic: Uploading portions of the page to quotes.

And, for the record, the article in question merely brought to light something I've been rolling around for some time. That being, I've considered myself agnostic because it lends itself to less issues of moral character in debates with Fundamentalist Christians, of which there are many in my place of work. So, I was agnostic for the convenience of it, or a closet atheist.

TL;DR

Does BAAWA have a new incarnation around these parts? He'd like this thread.

I remember him, he was fun.

And what if you do no believe in God, as opposed to believing there is no God?


as long as you dont believe in some other god, you are an atheist. (most people are atheists as regards the greek gods, for example, but since they might believe in the christian god, they are not atheists)

but really, as long as you do not believe in god. you are an atheist whether its "not believing" or "believing not".

other people love to bandy the differences about but as far as im concerned an atheist is an atheist and i dont care his motives.

if you have any questions for me, I'll respond to them then.


Do you "know" that there is no God? Or do you just believe it based on the evidence around you but not certain of his non existence?

http://www.brainsturbator.com/img/takethat.jpg

as long as you dont believe in some other god, you are an atheist. (most people are atheists as regards the greek gods, for example, but since they might believe in the christian god, they are not atheists)

but really, as long as you do not believe in god. you are an atheist whether its "not believing" or "believing not".

other people love to bandy the differences about but as far as im concerned an atheist is an atheist and i dont care his motives.

hmm I think an atheist is more "I know for certain that there is no God", an agnostic atheist is "I believe but am not 100% certain that there is no God" and an agnostic being anything between that and believing.

To be agnostic is to hold the belief that something is beyond falsification and/or observation. So you might be, but nothing in your post indicates you are. On the other hand, to be atheist is not to hold belief in divinity. Which you apparently don't, as you can't be arsed to contemplate it.

So I'm not entirely sure why you'd call yourself agnostic?

I'm an agnostic atheist myself. I have no reason to believe in divinity, nor do I think any such reason would be obtainable by beings in this universe. My wife's an agnostic Muslim.

Well, in the big atheist-theist discussion, there's no room for people who don't care either way. I can't claim to have a belief in god, but then again I'm not atheistic enough to belief that there is no god, either.
I belief it's not possible to know, and moved on. Call me an agnostic agnostic, if you want ;)

http://www.brainsturbator.com/img/takethat.jpg

That letter could not be more fake/trollish if it tried.

It's what I've always thought.
That letter could not be more fake/trollish if it tried.
In my life, I've heard people say all those things.

hmm I think an atheist is more "I know for certain that there is no God", an agnostic atheist is "I believe but am not 100% certain that there is no God" and an agnostic being anything between that and believing.

nope

if you dont believe in god you dont believe in god. it doesnt matter how strong the lack of belief

according to the article posted by the OP its "you are either a theist, or you aren't and if you arent you are an atheist." so if you have no active belief in god (of whatever sort) you are an atheist even if hold out hope that it might turn out to be true.

and besides an agnostic atheist is an atheist eh? thats why agnostic modifies atheist and not the other way around.

That page won't load... :(

Anyway, I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school. But I did turn out agnostic, which I personally don't regard as pc.
My bf is atheist, meaning he is convinced that there is no god and has very little patience with people who think there might be.
In my case it's simply that I just don't care if there's a god or not. I don't see it as making any difference at all to my life. So I wouldn't really go and call myself atheist, that doesn't describe my belief. Or rather lack thereof.

I think you would be what we call implicit vs explicit atheist, (explicits are also sometimes called anti-theist)

I happen to be in the implicit area myself

somewhere in that text, it mentions how religion and moraliy are inversly related.
ok, so the figures say many Christians are immoral.
does that mean Christianity itself is immoral? does it mean that you will become immoral if you become Christian?
no, it just shows how some church leaders are immoral.

heres a slight metaphor:
if a the cheif of a fire squad is just in it for the money, is the whole crew in it for the money too? does it mean that nobody in his crew acctually WANTS to save lives? not at all. does it mean firefighting is only about material rewards, and never about saving lives? sure, the leader might be corrupt, but maybe the crew is devoted. maybe the idea of firefighting itself is good, but is being misrepresented.

all im saying is NOT to take actions of others into account of your beleifs, but only what you feel about the idea itself.

That letter could not be more fake/trollish if it tried.

Even the real world has trolls :(

I think you would be what we call implicit vs explicit atheist, (explicits are also sometimes called anti-theist)

I happen to be in the implicit area myself

Ok, so that makes me an implicitly atheist agnostic? Or an implicitly agnostic atheist? Or an agnostic atheisitc implicit?

nope

if you dont believe in god you dont believe in god. it doesnt matter how strong the lack of belief

according to the article posted by the OP its "you are either a theist, or you aren't and if you arent you are an atheist." so if you have no active belief in god (of whatever sort) you are an atheist even if hold out hope that it might turn out to be true.

and besides an agnostic atheist is an atheist eh? thats why agnostic modifies atheist and not the other way around.

Well i'm not talking about the OPs definition but the general view of what Atheism/Agnosticism is. Claiming you know something 100% and that you believe something are very different things. The former is quite arrogant and pretty much impossible in our mortal state in my opinion.

nope

if you dont believe in god you dont believe in god. it doesnt matter how strong the lack of belief

according to the article posted by the OP its "you are either a theist, or you aren't and if you arent you are an atheist." so if you have no active belief in god (of whatever sort) you are an atheist even if hold out hope that it might turn out to be true.

and besides an agnostic atheist is an atheist eh? thats why agnostic modifies atheist and not the other way around.

The term "Agnostic" modifies theist as well ... that is the point to "Agnostic"

Atheist or theist are in reference to your beliefs, agnostic is in reference to your belief in the ability to know one way or another

I am an agnostic atheist

I do not believe there is a god and I don't think it is possible to know for sure by the very definition of god.

In my life, I've heard people say all those things.

Same here, but the way it was written was just so..... fake.

Ok, so that makes me an implicitly atheist agnostic? Or an implicitly agnostic atheist? Or an agnostic atheisitc implicit?

I would call you an apathetic agnostic or apathetic agnostic atheist depending on your leaning, just to confuse you even more :D

I read it, and agree with most of what it says, except on one point: it seems to try to convince me that you cannot be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. As an agnostic atheist, I see the possibility for there being a god, but I see no reason to believe in one. I hold the same possibility in my mind of God that I do of unicorns. (and yes, I do hold out the slight possibility that unicorns are real. Perhaps out of hope... more than anything else... *sniff*)
(And hey, you have to admit, if unicorns did exist, we could bring them in when president's take the oath of office. "and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the--" *is stabbed through the heart for lying.*

If you want to take a stand against my faith because you don't like being PC, that's fine by me.Mind if I sit? - I'm feeling a bit lazy... I'm sure God will continue to love you just the same.Of course not. That fictional entity doesn't exist. Now the Star Goat on the other hand. Star Goat lubs me :pDo you "know" that there is no God? Or do you just believe it based on the evidence around you but not certain of his non existence?I know it's not aimed at me, but I'll answer all the same. No, I don't know there's no God, in exactly the same way that I don't know I'm not wearing a bunny in a tutu on my head. It's a matter of moving the goalposts. If I look in the mirror, the bunny might be invisible. If I feel my scalp, the bunny might be immaterial. And so on.
In the case of the Christian God it's a bit easier, as the properties attributed to it are mutually exclusive. So that one I can positively rule out.Well, in the big atheist-theist discussion, there's no room for people who don't care either way.Oh but you're wrong. There's plenty of room.I can't claim to have a belief in god, but then again I'm not atheistic enough to belief that there is no god, either.But that's still not agnosticism, it's just atheism. Agnosticism is about whether or not you think you can obtain evidence either way. It implies nothing about what you think the case may be. So when you use agnosticism to describe an atheist position, you might as well be calling a human being a carport. It's no more or less wrong.I belief it's not possible to know, and moved on. Call me an agnostic agnostic, if you wantNope. I'll call you an agnostic atheist. Doesn't mean you're anywhere nearly as explicit about it as I am, but when you're not a theist, you're an atheist. The "Don't give a shit" position is atheism too.

On a side note, I don't really give a damn either. At most, I give a damn about people who think there's something wrong about not giving a damn.

Well i'm not talking about the OPs definition but the general view of what Atheism/Agnosticism is. Claiming you know something 100% and that you believe something are very different things. The former is quite arrogant and pretty much impossible in our mortal state in my opinion.

nah. not that ill debate it with you because i find the question tedious. as far as im concerned, if you call yourself an atheist, you are an atheist, if you call yourself an agnostic, you are an agnostic. you can worry about the details if they bother you.

agnosticism implies that you wrestle with the problem. that you are trying to think it through. that you have come to no conclusions yet.

this is why, while i have no problem with cabra calling herself agnostic, i would have classified her as an atheist. she doesnt believe and doesnt care.

Ok, so that makes me an implicitly atheist agnostic? Or an implicitly agnostic atheist? Or an agnostic atheisitc implicit?

Implicit atheist from what I have heard so far, or apathetic or "soft" atheist ... all mean close to the same thing.

The idea is that you do not know there is a god or not and dont really care, you just fall into the "no belief" category because you do not have enough evidence one way or another

Now you would be agnostic if you believed it was not possible to have real evidence or to "know"

I know it's not aimed at me, but I'll answer all the same. No, I don't know there's no God, in exactly the same way that I don't know I'm not wearing a bunny in a tutu on my head. It's a matter of moving the goalposts. If I look in the mirror, the bunny might be invisible. If I feel my scalp, the bunny might be immaterial. And so on.

Now we are heading down the proof of a negative road. I say to you, that bunny is contingent however a God is not.

agnosticism implies that you wrestle with the problem. that you are trying to think it through. that you have come to no conclusions yet.


Why isn't concluding that you don't know or cannot know for sure a reasonable conclusion?

Why isn't concluding that you don't know or cannot know for sure a reasonable conclusion?

i suppose it is. but im thinking that you need to have done the work in order to make that claim, not just not care enough to decide one way or the other.

i'm an atheist because i don't bilieve in god. there is nothing about the concept that i find remotely plausible. i don't think it needs any further elaboration.

Now we are heading down the proof of a negative road. I say to you, that bunny is contingent however a God is not.You're welcome to say that. Now I ask you: are we talking about a particular deity, or divinity as a concept? And I further ask: what is divinity, if not both possible and unnecessary?agnosticism implies that you wrestle with the problem. that you are trying to think it through. that you have come to no conclusions yet.Not at all. Agnosticism is an epistemological position. Not a subjective one. It says nothing about your personal beliefs.

Well, however you define the terms, I am about as thoroughly, strongly atheist as a person can be.

Not only do I affirm the non-existence of God, but I affirm that there can be no evidence, EVER that would convince me otherwise.

Booming voice from the sky? More likely aliens playing a prank than "God."

Moreover, if I did meet some entity resembling and claiming to be the God of the Christian Bible... well, as I say in my Facebook "religion" listing: If I met God, I'd kill him.

Or at least I'd go down fighting. ;)

Agnosticism is an epistemological position. Not a subjective one. It says nothing about your personal beliefs.

it may well be, but for me to agree with you you would have to tell me what you mean by that using small, easily understood words.

I am an atheist by either assumption.

If someone came up to me and said, "I am God," I would not be agnostic on the question of whether or not he or she actually was. I would believe that he or she wasn't, and act accordingly.

it may well be, but for me to agree with you you would have to tell me what you mean by that using small, easily understood words.

It means it's a position rooted in the concept of knowledge. Because agnosticism relies on the inability to definitively know whether or not God exists at present time (which can more or less be stated as being fact), it isn't based on belief one way or another. Though there is a belief aspect to agnosticism in that some agnostics believe it is impossible to ever know whether or not God truly exists.

It means it's a position rooted in the concept of knowledge. Because agnosticism relies on the inability to definitively know whether or not God exists at present time (which can more or less be stated as being fact), it isn't based on belief one way or another. Though there is a belief aspect to agnosticism in that some agnostics believe it is impossible to ever know whether or not God truly exists.

that seems to me to be one theory of agnosticism. that god, should he exist, is unknowable. he is too far removed from our experience for us to be able to comprehend or access in any way.

but since that is not really the god that is proposed by most religions, why arent those on a religious search that has not reached a conclusion also agnostic? many christians will tell you that they believe because they have had a personal experience that they identify as god. why cant i, as a searcher for the truth, consider this potential god experience in my agnostic search for god?

i wouldnt not call those people who are searching for god anything but agnostic. they may well have some religious experience that convinces them that god exists or they may well come to the conclusion that he doesnt exist at all in any form. until they are satisfied with the fullness of their search they are searchers neither theist nor atheist.

that seems to me to be one theory of agnosticism. that god, should he exist, is unknowable. he is too far removed from our experience for us to be able to comprehend or access in any way.

but since that is not really the god that is proposed by most religions, why arent those on a religious search that has not reached a conclusion also agnostic? many christians will tell you that they believe because they have had a personal experience that they identify as god. why cant i, as a searcher for the truth, consider this potential god experience in my agnostic search for god?

i wouldnt not call those people who are searching for god anything but agnostic. they may well have some religious experience that convinces them that god exists or they may well come to the conclusion that he doesnt exist at all in any form. until they are satisfied with the fullness of their search they are searchers neither theist nor atheist.

That's why I self-identify as agnostic. I've had a few strange abnormal (because calling it paranormal would just be idiotic) experiences that I can't explain away, except possibly as a sort of autohypnosis. At the same time, even should there be a God, I have no way of truly knowing for sure of his existence, because there will always be doubt. I've always held that faith and doubt are necessarily two sides of the same coin, because blind faith, or faith without doubt, is basically a statement of certainty.

But keep in mind that almost 100% of the time, people use agnostic as a self-identification. No one points at another person and says "That fellow's an agnostic." It's usually atheist or theist, largely because agnostic is one of those grey areas that people can't assault easily, largely because it's an epistemological position, rather than a metaphysical one.

Also, arguments from personal experience are something you have to take as you like. It's not something you can make an outright ruling for or against, but even if you entertain their statements as potentially leaning towards evidence for the existence of God, there will always remain doubt. Doubt in the truth of their statements, doubt in the sincerity of their statements, and doubt as to the nature of their experience.


I hope that makes sense and that I answered your questions. If I did not, please say so and I will continue. I've just recently returned home from 12 hours of classes, so my attention to detail is not at 100% right now (except for my annoying need to be grammatically and lexicographically correct despite posting this on an internet forum.)

Brief read through Mr. Tobin. He is certainly no expert on the nuances of Christian theology; there are any number of oversimplifications that could be easily corrected. Furthermore, he is not a very good historian.

That's why I self-identify as agnostic. I've had a few strange abnormal (because calling it paranormal would just be idiotic) experiences that I can't explain away, except possibly as a sort of autohypnosis. At the same time, even should there be a God, I have no way of truly knowing for sure of his existence, because there will always be doubt. I've always held that faith and doubt are necessarily two sides of the same coin, because blind faith, or faith without doubt, is basically a statement of certainty.

But keep in mind that almost 100% of the time, people use agnostic as a self-identification. No one points at another person and says "That fellow's an agnostic." It's usually atheist or theist, largely because agnostic is one of those grey areas that people can't assault easily, largely because it's an epistemological position, rather than a metaphysical one.

Also, arguments from personal experience are something you have to take as you like. It's not something you can make an outright ruling for or against, but even if you entertain their statements as potentially leaning towards evidence for the existence of God, there will always remain doubt. Doubt in the truth of their statements, doubt in the sincerity of their statements, and doubt as to the nature of their experience.


I hope that makes sense and that I answered your questions. If I did not, please say so and I will continue. I've just recently returned home from 12 hours of classes, so my attention to detail is not at 100% right now (except for my annoying need to be grammatically and lexicographically correct despite posting this on an internet forum.)

i am only so interested in a philosophical discussion of what qualifies as agnostic in any case. your explanation was fine. not that im sure its what similization meant--big words are sometimes slippery that way.

i get tired of the "you cant be in my club" mentality of deciding whether or not someone else's reason for identifying as a believer, agnostic or atheist is good enough.

i, of course, believe that most people in the united states are really atheist but dont have the guts to admit it to themselves. their behavior indicates to me that they dont have much thought about the afterlife, their duty as a christian, jew or whatever, or their adherence to the rules of their faith. they stick a vague notion of GOD over running of the world so that they never have to really think about it again.

which wasnt talking about you if that seemed like i was dissing you.

i am only so interested in a philosophical discussion of what qualifies as agnostic in any case. your explanation was fine. not that im sure its what similization meant--big words are sometimes slippery that way.

i get tired of the "you cant be in my club" mentality of deciding whether or not someone else's reason for identifying as a believer, agnostic or atheist is good enough.

i, of course, believe that most people in the united states are really atheist but dont have the guts to admit it to themselves. their behavior indicates to me that they dont have much thought about the afterlife, their duty as a christian, jew or whatever, or their adherence to the rules of their faith. they stick a vague notion of GOD over running of the world so that they never have to really think about it again.

which wasnt talking about you if that seemed like i was dissing you.

No, it didn't. It sounded like the annoyed talk of any person who truly believed in their position regarding the position of those around him or her who he/she feels are insincere in their beliefs.

And I agree. There is entirely too much holier-than-thou in religion. I'm of the belief that most religious people are merely religious so that they can use their particular religion as a horribly twisted shield against criticism for their own underlying prejudices and faults.

I'm also of the mind that the vast majority of people who are of faith are also of faith because of simple fear of being "wrong" about the afterlife. That's largely one of the reasons I lost my faith. I realized that if I was to be reincarnated in a lesser position, it wasn't all that big a deal, as there was an eternity to catch up, or as close to an eternity as need be. And if I wasn't to be reincarnated...well I'd just spend a lifetime bound by outdated tradition and (in my opinion) draconian morality.

One of my primary objections to religion is always the lack of proper thought that goes into many people's systems of belief. A self-enforced ignorance that I find appalling. Which is why when I find people who have done their homework, believe what they believe, but have not only researched other faiths, but given some serious thought to what they believe, rather than blindly paying lip service to one God or another because they have no desire to learn about anything else, probably out of fear of being shaken in their faith, I find people I can deeply respect, whether I agree with them or not.

Edit: And who don't need to shove their faith down my throat in some strange attempt to "save" me by force rather than by example.

Second Edit: [/tired rant]

I'm not an atheist because I believe it is possible for highly advanced beings to be identical to what we would see as Gods, and am confident that we will one day achieve a similar level of existence, perhaps creating a new universe for another generation of intelligence to arise...

However, I do not believe in a transcendent God; more accurately, I'm agnostic on the issue, but it just doesn't seem to have any valid evidence or logic to back it up.

No, it didn't. It sounded like the annoyed talk of any person who truly believed in their position regarding the position of those around him or her who he/she feels are insincere in their beliefs.

And I agree. There is entirely too much holier-than-thou in religion. I'm of the belief that most religious people are merely religious so that they can use their particular religion as a horribly twisted shield against criticism for their own underlying prejudices and faults.

I'm also of the mind that the vast majority of people who are of faith are also of faith because of simple fear of being "wrong" about the afterlife. That's largely one of the reasons I lost my faith. I realized that if I was to be reincarnated in a lesser position, it wasn't all that big a deal, as there was an eternity to catch up, or as close to an eternity as need be. And if I wasn't to be reincarnated...well I'd just spend a lifetime bound by outdated tradition and (in my opinion) draconian morality.

One of my primary objections to religion is always the lack of proper thought that goes into many people's systems of belief. A self-enforced ignorance that I find appalling. Which is why when I find people who have done their homework, believe what they believe, but have not only researched other faiths, but given some serious thought to what they believe, rather than blindly paying lip service to one God or another because they have no desire to learn about anything else, probably out of fear of being shaken in their faith, I find people I can deeply respect, whether I agree with them or not.

Edit: And who don't need to shove their faith down my throat in some strange attempt to "save" me by force rather than by example.

Second Edit: [/tired rant]

nicely put.

pascal's hindu wager puts you in a bit of a different position eh? sure you can fall behind your current development but, as you say, you would have eternity to get it right.

so different from the christian need to get it right right now because if your belief is too far off the mark you are doomed for all eternity.

yeah i too have great respect for true believers who have done their homework. in many ways i envy them their faith.

nicely put.

pascal's hindu wager puts you in a bit of a different position eh? sure you can fall behind your current development but, as you say, you would have eternity to get it right.

so different from the christian need to get it right right now because if your belief is too far off the mark you are doomed for all eternity.

yeah i too have great respect for true believers who have done their homework. in many ways i envy them their faith.

Yes. I like a more forgiving religion, in general, though Hinduism is far from perfect in its own ways.

There's a lot to envy about them. Especially when they're the ones going around saying, "I don't care what you believe, stop killing people and let's treat everybody as equals."

I don't know. Atheist pope?

That would rule.

Nope. I'll call you an agnostic atheist. Doesn't mean you're anywhere nearly as explicit about it as I am, but when you're not a theist, you're an atheist. The "Don't give a shit" position is atheism too.

On a side note, I don't really give a damn either. At most, I give a damn about people who think there's something wrong about not giving a damn.

I believe in God but I don't give a damn, does that make me an atheist theist? Also, in the article it says that the atheist shifts the burden of proof to the theist, but simply shifting the burden of proof to somebody else doesn't make you right, it just means you can't prove it either.

As for me, I'd just as happily believe that there is a God even if there isn't, it's not like I'm trying to force my ideas on anyone else, so it shouldn't matter to anyone else. I just don't like being told it's illogical to believe in God, but logical to believe there is no God. I've heard that I might as well believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that's just stupid. I liked the way South Park put it when they let Richard Dawkins star, about how Ism's are more the problem, not God or lack of belief in such.

What amuses me is the whole argument really.

The dictionary defines agnostic and atheist as this...but the dictionaries are wrong, and most atheists use a different definition of atheist.

Yes, maybe....but why should i believe someone's personal definition of a word over a dictionary's?

You don't have to believe a person's definition over a dictionary, and I'm not saying that you should. In this case, I believe Mr. Tobin has a valid point, even if he is just proposing what others have written as his point. As I said before, his writing has both sources and a bibliography, and those references indicate that he has done a bit of research.

I don't claim to take everything he says as gospel, although his site is a damn fine resource for an interesting read, and he has a fair grasp on Christian theology. The rest of his site deals almost exclusively with both Christian history and the questions associated with it, such as the authenticity of the Bible and it's "inerrancy."

@Hydesland
I rather think of my own philosophy the way Mr. Tobin defined atheism. That being, not theism. No belief or lack of belief in any sort of god.

@Schorteskatascansolani
Mr. Tobin's site in general, with as much weight as my opinion carries, is linked throughout its separate arguments with separate bullet points that he thought deserved their own pages as opposed to adding to the length of the pages themselves. In essence, he added pages and evidence as he found them, or when he thought they added to his point's premises.

Edit:
I don't mean for that to sound as though he made up evidence, but a web page can't be put up all at once, or maintained in that way.

I consider myself atheist because most of the time, I can't believe in any particular (or any) God-being. Certainly not any of the ones worshipped by most people. Of course we all have moments of weakness where we cry out to $deity$ to save us from something we can't see any OTHER thing saving us from. But I try not to base my theology on simple desperate hope or the Pascal's Wager.

I don't consider myself one of those "There is absolutely no God!" atheists - the Strong viewpoint. I'm sure I could be wrong. Heck, maybe there is indeed a God, named Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet. But I don't believe so.

Since i am convinced that there is evolution even if Darwin's theory is wrong, I find it logical that there may be a being that is so advanced compared to us as to be called a "god". Why the hell this being should know about us, give a damn about us and if it does, not play ping-pong with planet Earth is a question I leave to leaders of religions. Even if now there isn't such a being, there may be in time.
I am not sure of whether unexplainable phenomena happen around us (resurrection, invocation of spirits, healings that sort of thing), but i will not go as far as to say that it is not possible to find out if they do, or that they will remain unexplainable. (If they do happen, they confirm my definition of divine (a.k.a. advanced))
I ask a theist and an atheist alike the same simple questions:What is (a) God? and why do you believe that there is or isn't such a being?
And I don't use the question as a rhetorical weapon, I really want if not need to hear what people have to say.
Finally, I am trying to find out what do believing specialists in different religions can say about their faiths. And even if I do this, I'll still have to see how consistent their expanations are with their religion founder's before I can consider converting.
Where does this place me? A gnostic? A would-be serial killer? :P

Since i am convinced that there is evolution even if Darwin's theory is wrong, I find it logical that there may be a being that is so advanced compared to us as to be called a "god". Why the hell this being should know about us, give a damn about us and if it does, not play ping-pong with planet Earth is a question I leave to leaders of religions. Even if now there isn't such a being, there may be in time.
I am not sure of whether unexplainable phenomena happen around us (resurrection, invocation of spirits, healings that sort of thing), but i will not go as far as to say that it is not possible to find out if they do, or that they will remain unexplainable. (If they do happen, they confirm my definition of divine (a.k.a. advanced))
I ask a theist and an atheist alike the same simple questions:What is (a) God? and why do you believe that there is or isn't such a being?
And I don't use the question as a rhetorical weapon, I really want if not need to hear what people have to say.
Finally, I am trying to find out what do believing specialists in different religions can say about their faiths. And even if I do this, I'll still have to see how consistent their expanations are with their religion founder's before I can consider converting.
Where does this place me? A gnostic? A would-be serial killer? :P

As an atheist, I can only say that I claim to have no knowledge of a god, but I do have knowledge as to several theists' deity, and armed with this knowledge I have no belief in any of them.

So for an atheist, the first question you pose is a matter for somebody else . . . I've already posted earlier several reasons for my lack of belief.

As an atheist, I can only say that I claim to have no knowledge of a god, but I do have knowledge as to several theists' deity, and armed with this knowledge I have no belief in any of them.

So for an atheist, the first question you pose is a matter for somebody else . . . I've already posted earlier several reasons for my lack of belief.

Do you acknowedge the possibility then? If so, you are more-so an agnost than an atheist. Not trying to trip you up, be a dick, or any such thing, just making a statement.

I don't know what the qualities of a god would be, so I wouldn't know a god if I saw one, nor would I be able to acknowledge said god were evidence provided. I do know the criteria set forth by Judeo-Christian doctrine, and according to the evidence as suggested by the Bible, I have summarily dismissed the Christian God as one of fallacy and not of fact.

I readily acknowledge the possibility of a god/pantheon of gods. However, as I have not seen evidence for one, I'm not going to say that there is, or that they too are not the constructs of someone's lack of understanding. Were the proof provided, and I was able to both comprehend and recognize said proof, I might accept that being as god. I'm going to backtrack a little and say that a transcendent god, one that has no visible hand in our universe, is not one that I would say could have evidence for his/her/its/their existence.

So yes, I have some agnostic traits, but as of yet I am unconvinced of any proof of a transcendent deity.

An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the
god question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question.

* John McCarthy

as long as there is no proof that god exists, as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't.

besides, if he did exist, and came to me or made me know in some way he exists, if he's anywhere close to the abrahamic god, I'd become a satanist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan)straight away.

For an idea to exist, there must be some form of truth to it. Whether be it associations, dreams. In every object or idea has some relation to reality, otherwise it would not exist. The idea of God exists, therefore in someone way or another a higher being must exist. Nothing is perfect, then where does the idea of perfection come from? Thing only thing we can imagine to be perfect is God, therefore God must exist because the idea exists.

For an idea to exist, there must be some form of truth to it. Whether be it associations, dreams. In every object or idea has some relation to reality, otherwise it would not exist. The idea of God exists, therefore in someone way or another a higher being must exist. Nothing is perfect, then where does the idea of perfection come from? Thing only thing we can imagine to be perfect is God, therefore God must exist because the idea exists.

that bullshit has been debunked by theists, hundreds of years ago...

what about a perfect circle? I can imagine a perfect circle, so that means there is somewhere a material perfect circle. :rolleyes:

So if I happen to be a bored to death deity posting on this forum, and I reveal my nature to you, you'll automatically declare war on me? Did I do something wrong when I installed your ancestors' self-preservation instinct?
:D :D :D

another question- there is a difference in not believing there is a god and believing that there isn't. In the first case you are constantly on the lookout for new proof, ready to accept it whatever it may prove. In the latter you are a religious person worshipping the non existence of god(s).

Which of the two should be called atheism?

that bullshit has been debunked by theists, hundreds of years ago...

what about a perfect circle? I can imagine a perfect circle, so that means there is somewhere a material perfect circle. :rolleyes:

Perfect circle? i think that went over your head... its the idea of perfect that exists because god does. We may associate perfect with more than one thing, although that thing we may think of may not be perfect. We can apply the idea of perfection and warp it and attatch it to many things, with those things existing. But the idea of perfection is still there.

So if I happen to be a bored to death deity posting on this forum, and I reveal my nature to you, you'll automatically declare war on me? Did I do something wrong when I installed your ancestors' self-preservation instinct?
:D :D :D

another question- there is a difference in not believing there is a god and believing that there isn't. In the first case you are constantly on the lookout for new proof, ready to accept it whatever it may prove. In the latter you are a religious person worshipping the non existence of god(s).

Which of the two should be called atheism?

well at the very least I would hold you accountable for what happens on earth, and require you to explain yourself. but I did mention the abrahamic god.

For an idea to exist, there must be some form of truth to it. Whether be it associations, dreams. In every object or idea has some relation to reality, otherwise it would not exist. The idea of God exists, therefore in someone way or another a higher being must exist. Nothing is perfect, then where does the idea of perfection come from? Thing only thing we can imagine to be perfect is God, therefore God must exist because the idea exists.

Right... so having the idea of seeing a pink bunny wearing a tutu sitting in Similization's head means that there has to be a pink bunny wearing a tutu sitting in Similization's head?

Perfect circle? i think that went over your head... its the idea of perfect that exists because god does. We may associate perfect with more than one thing, although that thing we may think of may not be perfect. We can apply the idea of perfection and warp it and attatch it to many things, with those things existing. But the idea of perfection is still there.

right. so the idea of perfection is perfect too? what IS perfection anyway? it's just a concept, and I don't see the link between an ill-defined concept and a proof for the existence of a supernatural being...

So if I happen to be a bored to death deity posting on this forum, and I reveal my nature to you, you'll automatically declare war on me? Did I do something wrong when I installed your ancestors' self-preservation instinct?
:D :D :D

another question- there is a difference in not believing there is a god and believing that there isn't. In the first case you are constantly on the lookout for new proof, ready to accept it whatever it may prove. In the latter you are a religious person worshipping the non existence of god(s).

Which of the two should be called atheism?

Firstly, Jesusslavesyou said that about the Abrahamic God, not necessarily about any god. That means, Allah, Yahweh, and Christ.

Secondly, I agree with you in that there is a slight difference between those definitions, however they are not definitions I would use, as I have already posted the definition I find to be the most correct, that being. Theist, having a belief in a god/gods, and Atheist being not theist. Technically, using these definitions, every Christian is an atheist, being as how they are not theists of a Greek Pantheon sort, and are not theists of a Norse Pantheon sort, and are not theists of a Hindu sort.

Thirdly, I disagree with your notion that an atheist worships his/her lack of belief in a god. I find it grossly offensive in fact. There is also a similar notion that scientists worship science, whereas in truth, many scientists are Christian, worshipping the Christian god, and thus do not worship science. Atheists do not worship at all, simply lacking the belief in a god/gods.

right. so the idea of perfection is perfect too? what IS perfection anyway? it's just a concept, and I don't see the link between an ill-defined concept and a proof for the existence of a supernatural being...

Do you believe, that we can create ideas without there being no relavence or truth to them in some form of reality? There have been repeated psychological experiments, over many years, testing the validity of ideas and how they are related to truth and reality. All of the involved psychologists have concluded that ideas must have a realtion to reality. This is a scientific reality, accepted by atheists and theists alike. Perfection is an idea we cant truthfully place on anything on this earth (someone may describe something as perfect, but infact everything is flawed, name one thing that is perfect, flawless) I understand what u mean when you dont really uderstand the concept of perfect. It is because we cant relate it to anything on this earth. It is otherworldy/supernatural something we cant quite comprehend. Yet we still have this idea

obviously this idea will not seem vast enough to change your mind concerning theism/atheism, but it is small ideas such as this that can be proof for something so divided over

Do you believe, that we can create ideas without there being no relavence or truth to them in some form of reality? There have been repeated psychological experiments, over many years, testing the validity of ideas and how they are related to truth and reality. All of the involved psychologists have concluded that ideas must have a realtion to reality. This is a scientific reality, accepted by atheists and theists alike. Perfection is an idea we cant truthfully place on anything on this earth (someone may describe something as perfect, but infact everything is flawed, name one thing that is perfect, flawless) I understand what u mean when you dont really uderstand the concept of perfect. It is because we cant relate it to anything on this earth. It is otherworldy/supernatural something we cant quite comprehend. Yet we still have this idea

Ok, now THAT is perfect proof that aliens do in fact exist.
As do fairies.
As does the Flying Spaghetti monster - praised be his noodly appendage!
As does the unvisible pink unicorn - my her hoofs be forever sharp.
And somewhere out there, there must be an awful lot of cute, talking animals...

Ok, now THAT is perfect proof that aliens do in fact exist.
As do fairies.
As does the Flying Spaghetti monster - praised be his noodly appendage!
As does the unvisible pink unicorn - my her hoofs be forever sharp.
And somewhere out there, there must be an awful lot of cute, talking animals...

dont be rediculous. We can mix ideas to our whim. We have an idea of a horse, the colour pink, and horns. You can mix them if you wish, our minds can connect and associate things however you wish, but perfection is something we cannot even imagine fully, but it is still there. So dont try and be a smart ass, i am a psychology major, i know what i am talking about.

Perfect is based entirely on perception. To one person, it could be the way the earth rotates just so, giving us fantastic sunrises and sunsets. To another it could the way that the ocean swells roll onto the shore, providing that amazing sound. It could be the way the human body can heal from amazing things, or that with the aid of medicine we can greatly improve life for those in danger of losing it. It could be the way that light is refracted through prisms to create our entire color spectrum.

I think it's just perfect that our universe operates on a set of rules that we can gradually understand and manipulate to our technological advantage. Also that strands of DNA allow for replication of highly evolved organisms that carry within them the same ability.

i am only so interested in a philosophical discussion of what qualifies as agnostic in any case. your explanation was fine. not that im sure its what similization meant--big words are sometimes slippery that way.Deus Malum did a perfectly fine job of explaining what I meant :) i get tired of the "you cant be in my club" mentality of deciding whether or not someone else's reason for identifying as a believer, agnostic or atheist is good enough.It's not really about any clubs or whether people's reasons are good or bad. Theism and atheism describes subjective beliefs. Agnosticism doesn't. So when people calls their subjective beliefs agnostic, they're simply making a mistake. In much the same way describing a ball as a cube is a mistake.

That this mistake can be very tempting to make because a certain number of theists and atheists are unwilling to accept other theists & atheists don't hold exactly the same beliefs as themselves, and don't hold them with the same fervour, doesn't really have anything to do with what the labels signify.

Also, I've fucked up the quotes, but you said something about hunting for divinity and being agnostic. I can only say that if you think there's some sort of objective knowledge to be had about divinity, then that'd be the opposite of agnosticism. If you don't, but look anyway, just for the hell of it, or hoping for some sort of subjective experience, then you are agnostic. But it still doesn't have anything to do with your belief, disbelief or lack of belief in divinity or particular deities.I believe in God but I don't give a damn, does that make me an atheist theist?No, it makes you a hair-splitter. Also, in the article it says that the atheist shifts the burden of proof to the theist, but simply shifting the burden of proof to somebody else doesn't make you right, it just means you can't prove it either.It's just poor wording. The burden of proof has never been on the atheist. Atheists make no claim, theists do.As for me, I'd just as happily believe that there is a God even if there isn't, it's not like I'm trying to force my ideas on anyone else, so it shouldn't matter to anyone else.Sadly, you'll always find some asshole who thinks s/he needs to save you from yourself. Fortunately for you, you'll find fewer than if you were an atheist (because there's a lot fewer of us).I just don't like being told it's illogical to believe in God, but logical to believe there is no God. I've heard that I might as well believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that's just stupid. I liked the way South Park put it when they let Richard Dawkins star, about how Ism's are more the problem, not God or lack of belief in such.You're not gonna like me now then. It is illogical to believe in divinity. It's illogical because there's no objective evidence to suggest any such thing exists. Objectively speaking, it's on par with believing the world's covered in 3 feet of foam.

But nobody important is rational all the time. Certainly nobody interesting is. We're emotional beings, us humans, and there's fuckloads of great subjective reasons for having a number of irrational beliefs. And as long as you're the master of them, not the other way 'round, then what's the problem?

Hell, I dread cockroaches. And I really mean dread. Nothing rational about it, and unlike yourbelief in divinity, my irrational shit's not exactly useful to me. On the contrary, I had to resort to sleeping in the street once, because of fucking cockroackes.

Finally, on those dictionaries.. Depends on which one you use. Some dictionaries defines atheism as disbelief, others as lack of belief. I've never seen a dictionary that didn't define agnosticism as an epistemological position, and they likewise seem to get theism right every time. It's too bad so many people have a problem with atheism simply being the lack of theism.

dont be rediculous. We can mix ideas to our whim. We have an idea of a horse, the colour pink, and horns. You can mix them if you wish, our minds can connect and associate things however you wish, but perfection is something we cannot even imagine fully, but it is still there. So dont try and be a smart ass, i am a psychology major, i know what i am talking about.

Right, and we have the idea of creating stuff (cause we do that all the time), we have the idea of sky, and we have the idea of a bearded old man. *poof - We have god.

The idea of perfection is born from simple abstraction. If we cannot abstract the idea of "apple" to include apples of all shapes, sizes, colours and tastes we would never be able to identify a round object with hard, crunchy flesh and a sweet, tangy smell and black seeds in the middle as apple.
Perfection is nothing but the common lowest denominator.

dont be rediculous. We can mix ideas to our whim. We have an idea of a horse, the colour pink, and horns. You can mix them if you wish, our minds can connect and associate things however you wish, but perfection is something we cannot even imagine fully, but it is still there. So dont try and be a smart ass, i am a psychology major, i know what i am talking about.I'm sorry. I didn't mean to, I swear. But I just concieved of a perfect, divinity-less existence. I hope your deities didn't suffer much as they died.

Perfect is based entirely on perception. To one person, it could be the way the earth rotates just so, giving us fantastic sunrises and sunsets. To another it could the way that the ocean swells roll onto the shore, providing that amazing sound. It could be the way the human body can heal from amazing things, or that with the aid of medicine we can greatly improve life for those in danger of losing it. It could be the way that light is refracted through prisms to create our entire color spectrum.

I think it's just perfect that our universe operates on a set of rules that we can gradually understand and manipulate to our technological advantage. Also that strands of DNA allow for replication of highly evolved organisms that carry within them the same ability.

That is a great misuse of the word. Perfection generally accepted is something without fault or flaw and impossiblity of improvement. You are using perfect as a word of pleasure or amazement. You can use whatever word you want to describe things you enjoy, including the word perfect, the sound and letters mean nothing. Its the idea thats important

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to, I swear. But I just concieved of a perfect, divinity-less existence. I hope your deities didn't suffer much as they died.

insults and jeering are the mark of the immature

That is a great misuse of the word. Perfection generally accepted is something without fault or flaw and impossiblity of improvement. You are using perfect as a word of pleasure or amazement. You can use whatever word you want to describe things you enjoy, including the word perfect, the sound and letters mean nothing. Its the idea thats important

perfect

• adjective 1 having all the required elements, qualities, or characteristics. 2 free from any flaw; faultless. 3 complete; absolute: it made perfect sense. 4 Grammar (of a tense) denoting a completed action or a state or habitual action which began in the past, formed in English with have or has and the past participle, as in they have eaten. 5 Mathematics (of a number) equal to the sum of its positive divisors, e.g. the number 6, whose divisors (1, 2, 3) also add up to 6.

Going by the first and second definition, perfection simply is everything that is required for the situation, without any flaws.
So, if I wanted to skip stones on water, a perfect stone would be oval, flat, without any bumps or dents. I can imagine that easily, and it doesn't require god in any way.

Right, and we have the idea of creating stuff (cause we do that all the time), we have the idea of sky, and we have the idea of a bearded old man. *poof - We have god.

The idea of perfection is born from simple abstraction. If we cannot abstract the idea of "apple" to include apples of all shapes, sizes, colours and tastes we would never be able to identify a round object with hard, crunchy flesh and a sweet, tangy smell and black seeds in the middle as apple.
Perfection is nothing but the common lowest denominator.

your comment about an image of God only further helps my case. We couldn't associate sky + old man, and come up with god,; unless we knew what the idea of "God" would be. No idea of a superior being is displayed anywhere within any on earth in physical form. An image has no relevance to there not being a god, humans create images, but deities exist

insults and jeering are the mark of the immature

As are remarks like this one, but do go on.

Going by the first and second definition, perfection simply is everything that is required for the situation, without any flaws.
So, if I wanted to skip stones on water, a perfect stone would be oval, flat, without any bumps or dents. I can imagine that easily, and it doesn't require god in any way.

but how do you know that it is perfect? perhaps its only the best thing you can think of in relation to your experiences, thats why perfection is so hard to comprehend

your comment about an image of God only further helps my case. We could associate sky + old man and come up with god, because we wouldnt know what "God" would be, no idea of a superior being is displayed anywhere on earthly matter. An image has no relevance to their not being a god, humans create images, but deities exist

I'm trying to bite my way through your grammar, but I'm failing...

As are remarks like this one, but do go on.

wrong, mine had a positive purpose, to make him wiser. His was only to hurt

Do you believe, that we can create ideas without there being no relavence or truth to them in some form of reality? There have been repeated psychological experiments, over many years, testing the validity of ideas and how they are related to truth and reality. All of the involved psychologists have concluded that ideas must have a realtion to reality. This is a scientific reality, accepted by atheists and theists alike. Perfection is an idea we cant truthfully place on anything on this earth (someone may describe something as perfect, but infact everything is flawed, name one thing that is perfect, flawless) I understand what u mean when you dont really uderstand the concept of perfect. It is because we cant relate it to anything on this earth. It is otherworldy/supernatural something we cant quite comprehend. Yet we still have this idea

obviously this idea will not seem vast enough to change your mind concerning theism/atheism, but it is small ideas such as this that can be proof for something so divided over

nope. perfect is a logical concept. therefore it has a truth in logic.logical concepts don't need to be reified in the real world. saying "I can think of god, so he exists" is at best wishfull thinking.

but how do you know that it is perfect? perhaps its only the best thing you can think of in relation to your experiences, thats why perfection is so hard to comprehend

Because it would be perfectly suited for my needs.
Just as the perfect circle is perfectly suited for the mathematicians needs.
Perfection is another abstract, like apple. Apples come in all colours and forms in real life, and so does perfection. We just need to abstract as a crutch for our brains.

wrong, mine had a positive purpose, to make him wiser. His was only to hurt

Ah, yes. I can clearly see how calling him immature was a nice way of positively influencing his personal development.

I'm trying to bite my way through your grammar, but I'm failing...

sorry just trying to type quickly, changed it a little...

Because it would be perfectly suited for my needs.
Just as the perfect circle is perfectly suited for the mathematicians needs.
Perfection is another abstract, like apple. Apples come in all colours and forms in real life, and so does perfection. We just need to abstract as a crutch for our brains.

But you only think its perfectly suited because you havent experienced anything better yet. it has been interessting, but i must get some sleep,its 4:30 am my time.

insults and jeering are the mark of the immature

that sounded more like sarcasm to me. and pretty good, at that.

your comment about an image of God only further helps my case. We couldn't associate sky + old man, and come up with god,; unless we knew what the idea of "God" would be. No idea of a superior being is displayed anywhere within any on earth in physical form. An image has no relevance to there not being a god, humans create images, but deities exist

You do know that to a little child, adults and especially parents are perfect in every way, right? They can never be wrong, they take care of everything and they demand obedience.
Does that sound familiar?

People simply projected those feelings onto a blank imaginative space and created god. The idea of god is born from the relationship children have with their parents.
The idea of perfection is a logical concept. The idea of god's qualities is illogical in its ver essence, as an all-powerful cannot be all-knowing and an all-loving god cannot be all-powerful. God is not perfection, god is an emotional construct. People created the idea according to their needs, just like I would have the idea of a perfect skipping stone.

But you only think its perfectly suited because you havent experienced anything better yet. it has been interessting, but i must get some sleep,its 4:30 am my time.

What could be better than the perfect skipping stone?
I thought perfection means it's no longer improvable?

that sounded more like sarcasm to me. and pretty good, at that.

Don't expect a psychology major to recognise sarcasm ;)

Posted by Similization I'm an agnostic atheist myself. I have no reason to believe in divinity, nor do I think any such reason would be obtainable by beings in this universe. My wife's an agnostic Muslim.

When you say that your wife is an agnostic Muslim, I gather you mean that she follows an Islamic lifestyle but isnt actually sure about wether or not God exists? or is she agnostic but from a Muslim background? Sorry, I found that interesting because I've been an agnostic Muslim, lived and followed in an Islamic culture but always had my doubts about wether or not God/Allah actually exists.

To relate my post to the OP, I left Islam for a sort of Deism first, becaue I couldn't reconcile the creation story with evolution, Muslims cant really take the story of Adam and Eve as symbolic as some Christians do, since the Quran presents it as literal. My main other reason, was because I couldnt condone many of the things said by the Quran and I disliked a lot of Muhammads actions, I dont think of him as a bad person as such for his time but he's certainly not worthy for emulation as a 21st century role model. Nor are many of the other Talmudic figures...Abraham, Lot etc.

I left Deism, for agnosticim eventually, since I didn't really have anything to base my beleif for God on and the sheer lack of evidence led me into thinking that taking an agnostic position was unnecessary. So now, I'm a happy atheist and thats my story.

What could be better than the perfect skipping stone?
I thought perfection means it's no longer improvable?

btw, if that god is perfect, there should be only one idea of him? why isn't that the case? and if one of them is the perfect one, wich one is it, and why?

When you say that your wife is an agnostic Muslim, I gather you mean that she follows an Islamic lifestyle but isnt actually sure about wether or not God exists? or is she agnostic but from a Muslim background? Sorry, I found that interesting because I've been an agnostic Muslim, lived and followed in an Islamic culture but always had my doubts about wether or not God/Allah actually exists.

To relate my post to the OP, I left Islam for a sort of Deism first, becaue I couldn't reconcile the creation story with evolution, Muslims cant really take the story of Adam and Eve as symbolic as some Christians do, since the Quran presents it as literal. My main other reason, was because I couldnt condone many of the things said by the Quran and I disliked a lot of Muhammads actions, I dont think of him as a bad person as such for his time but he's certainly not worthy for emulation as a 21st century role model. Nor are many of the other Talmudic figures...Abraham, Lot etc.

I left Deism, for agnosticim eventually, since I didn't really have anything to base my beleif for God on and the sheer lack of evidence led me into thinking that taking an agnostic position was unnecessary. So now, I'm a happy atheist and thats my story.

I'd say the bible presents things as quite literal too...

I'd say the bible presents things as quite literal too...
but not necessarily its currently held interpretations...

I'd say the bible presents things as quite literal too...

Yeah, your'e probably right..but a lot of Christians choose to take the creation story as symbolic, Muslims don't take that option because it's a requirement that to be Muslim you have to beleive in the existance of all the prophets mentioned in the Quran, including Adam. Perhaps their are the rare Muslims who take it symbolically but I always found it hypocritical to simply re-interpret every single passage that disagrees with modern science/ modern ethics etc. So yeah.

but not necessarily its currently held interpretations...

right, but that can go for the qu'ran too.

Firstly, Jesusslavesyou said that about the Abrahamic God, not necessarily about any god. That means, Allah, Yahweh, and Christ.

Secondly, I agree with you in that there is a slight difference between those definitions, however they are not definitions I would use, as I have already posted the definition I find to be the most correct, that being. Theist, having a belief in a god/gods, and Atheist being not theist. Technically, using these definitions, every Christian is an atheist, being as how they are not theists of a Greek Pantheon sort, and are not theists of a Norse Pantheon sort, and are not theists of a Hindu sort.

Thirdly, I disagree with your notion that an atheist worships his/her lack of belief in a god. I find it grossly offensive in fact. There is also a similar notion that scientists worship science, whereas in truth, many scientists are Christian, worshipping the Christian god, and thus do not worship science. Atheists do not worship at all, simply lacking the belief in a god/gods.

1st I admit that I was unclear about the abrahamic god. My own feelings for him kinda permeated my response and I called him a deity, not THE deity.However it was he (Yahwe, The Father, Allah) whom I meant, otherwise I wouldn't have made the joke about preservation instinct as an allusion to "my" creating the world.

2nd You disagree with my notion, applying it to your definition. I never called the second type of person an atheist, I simply asked if he were. Beside that, you misunderstood me - all I did was call a person believing that there was no God on no other grounds but faith, a worshipper of God's non existence. In the very same way I call a Christian who believes in Christ solely on the basis of faith a worshiper of Christ's divinity. As for the Christian scientist he may or not be a worshiper of Christ's divinity depending on the proof he has and he may or not be a convert of scientism depending on his reasons for his faith in science. I hope I made myself more clear now.

Now that we have assigned the term atheist to the first case, I ask how should we call the latter?

wrong, mine had a positive purpose, to make him wiser. His was only to hurtNo. Yours had the porpose of dismissing my sarcasm as infantile, so you didn't have to address it's point.

Anyway, wanna meet my pet dragon?

1st I admit that I was unclear about the abrahamic god. My own feelings for him kinda permeated my response and I called him a deity, not THE deity.However it was he (Yahwe, The Father, Allah) whom I meant, otherwise I wouldn't have made the joke about preservation instinct as an allusion to "my" creating the world.

2nd You disagree with my notion, applying it to your definition. I never called the second type of person an atheist, I simply asked if he were. Beside that, you misunderstood me - all I did was call a person believing that there was no God on no other grounds but faith, a worshipper of God's non existence. In the very same way I call a Christian who believes in Christ solely on the basis of faith a worshiper of Christ's divinity. As for the Christian scientist he may or not be a worshiper of Christ's divinity depending on the proof he has and he may or not be a convert of scientism depending on his reasons for his faith in science. I hope I made myself more clear now.

Now that we have assigned the term atheist to the first case, I ask how should we call the latter?

I'm going to go ahead and say we wouldn't call them anything, as I have as of yet not met a person who worships the non-existence, or belief in that non-existence, of a deity. Most *believe*--and I use that term loosely--due to an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, such as the atheist who *believes* there is no Christian god, does so because of evidence that does not point towards the god described by Christians. Replace god and Christian with whatever other religions/pantheon you can come up with, and you'll find why we don't see many examples of the latter, as atheism is not really a faith-based belief.

dont be rediculous. We can mix ideas to our whim. We have an idea of a horse, the colour pink, and horns. You can mix them if you wish, our minds can connect and associate things however you wish, but perfection is something we cannot even imagine fully, but it is still there. So dont try and be a smart ass, i am a psychology major, i know what i am talking about.

ya know, white, since you are a psychology major, you should run this theory past one of your professors and see what s/he says about it. i doubt s/he'll agree.

I'm going to go ahead and say we wouldn't call them anything, as I have as of yet not met a person who worships the non-existence, or belief in that non-existence, of a deity. Most *believe*--and I use that term loosely--due to an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, such as the atheist who *believes* there is no Christian god, does so because of evidence that does not point towards the god described by Christians. Replace god and Christian with whatever other religions/pantheon you can come up with, and you'll find why we don't see many examples of the latter, as atheism is not really a faith-based belief.

so ex, was the point of your OP that when you read that webpage you realized that you had been an atheist all along and had just been mislabelling yourself?

And, for the record, the article in question merely brought to light something I've been rolling around for some time. That being, I've considered myself agnostic because it lends itself to less issues of moral character in debates with Fundamentalist Christians, of which there are many in my place of work. So, I was agnostic for the convenience of it, or a closet atheist.

@Ashmoria
Something like that, yes.

The term "Agnostic" modifies theist as well ... that is the point to "Agnostic"

Atheist or theist are in reference to your beliefs, agnostic is in reference to your belief in the ability to know one way or another

I am an agnostic atheist

I do not believe there is a god and I don't think it is possible to know for sure by the very definition of god.

I agree, though I consider myself an agnostic theist. I choose to believe in a god though it is not possible to know for sure by the very definition of god.

I always find it amusing that some people think that because someone is agnostic that they are insecure in their beliefs. It seems to me that those that beat their breasts, declaring loudly to everyone they meet how everyone should believe in what they do, are the insecure ones.

I choose to believe in a god though it is not possible to know for sure by the very definition of god.Then what is that choice based on?

For almost 7 years now, I've considered myself an agnostic as opposed to an atheist until I read an interesting article by Paul N. Tobin, who more eloquently explains why this is merely a difference of political correctness.

Now, myself, I despise all things pc, as I find them to be inherently more prejudicial than I would like to be considered, so I immediately changed that little tick in my mind.

This thread is meant to offer explanations to those who wish them as to why somebody would reject the fullness of Christ's Gospel, in favor of Muhammed's Holy Words, Jewish dogma, The poetry of the Baghavad Gita, or whichever faith or lack thereof.

In other words, it's a thread about Conversions and de-Conversions.

Welcome.

The Difference between Athiest and Agnostic (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/atheistdefine.html)

I know I'm an atheist.

Then what is that choice based on?

I like happy endings :)

I like happy endings.what happy ending? and how is that assumed ending the basis of your choice? how does the promise of such an ending constitute grounds for your choice?

what happy ending? and how is that assumed ending the basis of your choice? how does the promise of such an ending constitute grounds for your choice?

Well, since you are insistent and my flippant remark did not appease your thirst for knowledge, I shall enlighten you.

I truly believe that religion is good, regardless whether there is a god or not. I believe religion is a evolutionary trait that keeps the species alive and sane by giving balance to our future looking minds. I don't think it is coincidence that religion begins to appear at the same time as the arts. Many great works of art, literature and music were inspired by religion.

As for religious wars, they weren't caused by religion, they were caused by leaders using religion to justify their wars. Of course FUD and nationalism/racism are just as guilty. Religion like anything else can be used for great "good" or great "evil".

Of course, that's not to say the religion is in anyway perfect. We have all seen the fundamentalists try to ban the teaching of evolution, abortions and homosexual marriage, but is that religion's fault or the fault of a mind that is so rigid in its beliefs, that it is violently opposed to anything that may threaten them? Let me tell you, it is not only the religious that can be narrow-minded and adamant in their beliefs. Just look at those who don't want to believe in global warming. People who consider other viewpoints and are willing to question their own beliefs, tend to be more receptive to new ideas.

As for my happy ending remark, while it was meant as a joke, I do prefer to believe in a hereafter where the good are rewarded and the bad punished. Why, because I the alternative scares me. Does this make me a fool? Probably, but as long as I don't force it on others, who cares? At least I can get some comfort out of believing in it.

As for religious wars, they weren't caused by religion, they were caused by leaders using religion to justify their wars. Of course FUD and nationalism/racism are just as guilty. Religion like anything else can be used for great "good" or great "evil".

Of course, that's not to say the religion is in anyway perfect. We have all seen the fundamentalists try to ban the teaching of evolution, abortions and homosexual marriage, but is that religion's fault or the fault of a mind that is so rigid in its beliefs, that it is violently opposed to anything that may threaten them? Let me tell you, it is not only the religious that can be narrow-minded and adamant in their beliefs. Just look at those who don't want to believe in global warming. People who consider other viewpoints and are willing to question their own beliefs, tend to be more receptive to new ideas.

And yet, religion is responsible for much of art and culture?

And yet, religion is responsible for much of art and culture?

Why not? Religion is not the boogyman. After all fire can burn down forests or cook your dinner, language can create sonnets or nazi propaganda. Religion is the same way. It's all in how you use it.

Why not? Religion is not the boogyman. After all fire can burn down forests or cook your dinner, language can create sonnets or nazi propaganda. Religion is the same way. It's all in how you use it.However, fire and language are substantial...

Well, since you are insistent and my flippant remark did not appease your thirst for knowledge, I shall enlighten you.

I truly believe that religion is good, regardless whether there is a god or not. I believe religion is a evolutionary trait that keeps the species alive and sane by giving balance to our future looking minds. I don't think it is coincidence that religion begins to appear at the same time as the arts. Many great works of art, literature and music were inspired by religion.

As for religious wars, they weren't caused by religion, they were caused by leaders using religion to justify their wars. Of course FUD and nationalism/racism are just as guilty. Religion like anything else can be used for great "good" or great "evil".

Of course, that's not to say the religion is in anyway perfect. We have all seen the fundamentalists try to ban the teaching of evolution, abortions and homosexual marriage, but is that religion's fault or the fault of a mind that is so rigid in its beliefs, that it is violently opposed to anything that may threaten them? Let me tell you, it is not only the religious that can be narrow-minded and adamant in their beliefs. Just look at those who don't want to believe in global warming. People who consider other viewpoints and are willing to question their own beliefs, tend to be more receptive to new ideas.

As for my happy ending remark, while it was meant as a joke, I do prefer to believe in a hereafter where the good are rewarded and the bad punished. Why, because I the alternative scares me. Does this make me a fool? Probably, but as long as I don't force it on others, who cares? At least I can get some comfort out of believing in it.

well I trully believe that religion is one of the most harmfull things around on earth. it promotes belief in supernatural phenomenons, and thus harms our understanding of the world, wich really doesn't need it. it makes people hope in an afterlife, and tells them that it's allright that they suffer in this life, 'cos they'll get rewarded in a hypothetical afterlife, thus making them less willing to rebel against their "fate" in the only life they actually have. it instill a sense of superiority in them because they know the one sacred "truth" and they are "pure" because they follow the "holy law", and thus helps them despise "non-believers", as if we didn't have enough (stupid) reasons to hate each other, and thus helps clashes between comunities...

</rant>

well I truly believe that religion is one of the most harmful things around on earth. it promotes belief in supernatural phenomena, and thus harms our understanding of the world, which really doesn't need it. it makes people hope in an afterlife, and tells them that it's alright that they suffer in this life, 'cos they'll get rewarded in a hypothetical afterlife, thus making them less willing to rebel against their "fate" in the only life they actually have. it instill a sense of superiority in them because they know the one sacred "truth" and they are "pure" because they follow the "holy law", and thus helps them despise "non-believers", as if we didn't have enough (stupid) reasons to hate each other, and thus helps clashes between communities...

</rant>no rant at all :p