Is anybody here NOT an athiest?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Dori Christensen:

Ieyke:

Dori Christensen:

I am a nothing-ist. I don't acknowledge the term 'atheist', as before the invention of god, or gods, there was no belief, therefore I have no need for this term.

Save on education and rent textbooks.

That might mean you're a Theological Noncognitivist or an Apatheist.

Yes, there's a term for everything. You can't escape, Escapist!

Would you refer to prehistoric man as atheist?

Are you a prehistoric man? No? Then you're an atheist, sillyhead.

Dori Christensen:

Ieyke:

Dori Christensen:

I am a nothing-ist. I don't acknowledge the term 'atheist', as before the invention of god, or gods, there was no belief, therefore I have no need for this term.

Save on education and rent textbooks.

That might mean you're a Theological Noncognitivist or an Apatheist.

Yes, there's a term for everything. You can't escape, Escapist!

Would you refer to prehistoric man as atheist?

No. Assuming you're meaning to imply that this is a prehistoric man without any concept of divine matters, then disbelief or belief in gods is a meaningless subject to him, and therefore he'd be an Apatheist.

Apatheist = "Simply does not care about belief or disbelief in deities."

Maybe it's because of my Baptist upbringing, but part of me can't shake the belief that God's out there, so I don't. I've found no evidence to prove its existence, but none to disprove it, either, so I default to my instincts.

Ieyke:

Positive Atheist = "Does not believe in a god. Claims there are no gods."

Negative Atheist = "Does not believe in a god. Makes no claims about gods not existing."

Agnostic = "Simply doesn't know if there are or are not gods, and doesn't try and support either position"

Agnostic Atheist = "Does not believe in a god. Admits it's impossible to prove they don't exist, and they very well might."

Agnostic Theist = "Believes in a god or gods. Admits it's impossible to prove they do exist, and that they very well might not."

Theological Noncognitivist = "Believes all postulation and belief regarding the existence or non-existence of deities to be totally meaningless."

Apatheist = "Simply does not care about belief or disbelief in deities."

Apathetic Agnostic = "Acknowledges that in all of history nothing has ever come of debating the existence or non-existence of deities, and that no form of deities seem to be concerned with the course of human events, therefore the whole matter of debating their existence is a waste of time.
====================================================================================

Positive Atheist is an actual position. A stupid position that arrogantly assumes that the Atheist knows something that is impossible to know.

Negative Atheist isn't a real position. Not believing in a god is fine, but you either admit that you could be wrong or you think you're right, which automatically makes you an Agnostic Atheist or a Positive Atheist.
Negative Atheist is completely meaningless.

Since "Negative Atheist" is a meaningless term, the "Positive" part of "Positive Atheist" can once again be ignored, because really it's just "Atheist".

Nope, wrong again.
'Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims-especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims-are unknown or unknowable.'

That's an agnostic. I find it a very, very strange position to occupy. How could religious claims be unknowable? I mean, if Jesus visited me and created bread and wine for me and we would walk across the water, yeah, I would be a Christian. It's not unknowable.

I am NOT an agnostic. Certainly not. But I'm not a positive atheist too, because you have to make the awkward claim that 'No Gods Exist'. That's impossible to prove or logically conclude.

Look, it's the same with werewolves, vampires, elves, dragons and other mythology; we CANNOT prove there are NO werewolves, vampires, elves or dragons. That's impossible. That doesn't mean we have to be 'agnostic' about them. I am not wondering whether or not they exist; I don't think "werewolves are unknowable" or that kind of crap. I don't believe in werewolves, vampires, elves or dragons because there are no rational grounds to support there existence. That's a very logical position and I hope all of us hold that position. We're not agnostic about werewolves, nor do we claim that they cannot possibly exist somewhere in the universe; you can't prove that. But you need extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim, if we lack even simple evidence, we can just dismiss the extraordinary claim.

It's a very logical position and it can be easily held regarding to God; I don't claim there is none because I can't proof it, nor am I like '50/50' or think his existence is unknowable; I dismiss the hypothesis because there is no rational ground to support it. That's a very logical position.

And thus, this...

Ieyke:
You actually have to be a complete moron to be an outright Atheist.

Atheists are arrogant fools who somehow assume they know something that is impossible to know.

Just in general, I hope everyone falls into "Agnostic Theist" "Agnostic" or "Agnostic Atheist" instead of "Theist" and "Atheist".

...is false, insulting and offensive.

Ieyke:

Gnoekeos:

Ieyke:
I'm Agnostic.....with a deity.
But not an Agnostic Theist. You'd think I obviously fit that definition perfectly, but no.
I am dead certain there is no such thing as gods, I acknowledge that it's possible I'm wrong and it's impossible to know for sure, and I have complete faith in a deity.

If that makes no sense to you, good.
It doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me either, but that's how I am.
*shrug*

Guess you could say my "religion" is a Hellenistic...Abrahamic...Norse...Pharaonic...thing...
In that order.
Yea.
<_<

That's less being Agnostic and more being a hypocrite.

It's not hypocritical. I'm not saying one thing and doing something else. I'm saying two completely opposite things and doing both.
I'm Agnostic and contradictory.

I realize it makes no sense. It really probably shouldn't.
Dunno how it could.
I tried for a while to figure out how the two might fit together, but they just don't.
It's not "I don't believe in gods BUT I do believe in gods"
it's "I don't believe in gods AND I do believe in gods"
They're simply two separate ideas unconnected and coexisting.

I'm not surprised you've got "Pharaonic" in that eclectic system of yours, that kind of "make your mind a noodle, stretch it out, twist it, and then bang the ends together" thinking is really common in Egyptian theology, holding multiple ideas in the same concept (e.g. nobody does deity-smooshes like the Egyptians) that manage to simultaneously make no fucking sense and yet make a compelling amount of sense. Fascinating stuff, as long as your brain doesn't completely break in the process.

You know... I'm not sure we're very far apart on this, either. I also describe myself as an agnostic theist, and define my agnostic component as "I don't Know, and shut up, you don't either" (I've spent entirely too much time around people who not only think they know the Gods' area code, but spend all day texting back and forth-- IMO, BS, they don't know half what they think they do). I 100% believe that *something* is going on with human religious experiences, but I don't know what it is, and I also 100% believe that by the time we've figured it out it will no longer matter because the questions will have changed. And I think that's a good thing. Religious experience is protean, it's impossible to claim actual knowledge of what's going on in it.

Or, as occultist Lon Milo DuQuette put it, "yes it's all in your head, but your head is bigger than you think it is".

Danyal:
It's a very logical position and it can be easily held regarding to God; I don't claim there is none because I can't proof it, nor am I like '50/50' or think his existence is unknowable; I dismiss the hypothesis because there is no rational ground to support it. That's a very logical position.

I very much hope you don't think of yourself as a scientist or philosopher. You'd be appalling at both.
No understanding of semantics or eye for subtle technicalities at all....

Polarity27:

Ieyke:

Gnoekeos:
That's less being Agnostic and more being a hypocrite.

It's not hypocritical. I'm not saying one thing and doing something else. I'm saying two completely opposite things and doing both.
I'm Agnostic and contradictory.

I realize it makes no sense. It really probably shouldn't.
Dunno how it could.
I tried for a while to figure out how the two might fit together, but they just don't.
It's not "I don't believe in gods BUT I do believe in gods"
it's "I don't believe in gods AND I do believe in gods"
They're simply two separate ideas unconnected and coexisting.

I'm not surprised you've got "Pharaonic" in that eclectic system of yours, that kind of "make your mind a noodle, stretch it out, twist it, and then bang the ends together" thinking is really common in Egyptian theology, holding multiple ideas in the same concept (e.g. nobody does deity-smooshes like the Egyptians) that manage to simultaneously make no fucking sense and yet make a compelling amount of sense. Fascinating stuff, as long as your brain doesn't completely break in the process.

You know... I'm not sure we're very far apart on this, either. I also describe myself as an agnostic theist, and define my agnostic component as "I don't Know, and shut up, you don't either" (I've spent entirely too much time around people who not only think they know the Gods' area code, but spend all day texting back and forth-- IMO, BS, they don't know half what they think they do). I 100% believe that *something* is going on with human religious experiences, but I don't know what it is, and I also 100% believe that by the time we've figured it out it will no longer matter because the questions will have changed. And I think that's a good thing. Religious experience is protean, it's impossible to claim actual knowledge of what's going on in it.

Or, as occultist Lon Milo DuQuette put it, "yes it's all in your head, but your head is bigger than you think it is".

You, mademoiselle, may very well be the first person to ever land in the neighborhood of understanding what I'm talking about.
Very nicely done.
*is quite genuinely impressed*

Ieyke:

You, mademoiselle, may very well be the first person to ever land in the neighborhood of understanding what I'm talking about.
Very nicely done.
*is quite genuinely impressed*

Ha, thank you! I'm glad getting my brain broken this many times has finally proven useful for something. :) In all seriousness, if you've any interest in their sort of thing at all (and since you've got Hellenic, Abrahamic, and Egyptian on the list, you very well may), consider spending some time around the Thelemites or the (better end of the) Chaos Magick people, if you haven't already. This kind of thing is bread and butter to them.

(I also have a great recommendation for a just-published book on Egyptian theology, since it's written by the acquaintance most responsible for my brain working the way it does on this stuff, poke me if you want the info.)

Tanis:
There's probably more of an atheist percent online because of some long-winded reason.

I'm actually ANTI-theist/olgy.
It's not 'a lack of', it's a 'disdain/hate of' all things religious.

So while I don't hate people for being part of a religion, I do look down on them in a sort of pity way.
I guess I figure if I, a dumbass, can rise out of it...why can't people smarter than me?

I blame my history books for it.
;)
And the anti-intellectuals that ALWAYS seem to come from one religious group or another.

If theres one thing I learned from my history books, its that theres been an awfull lot of people who thought they were right, and werent. I mean, the thing that personally turned me off religion was reading about the whole religion doing the Roman Empire, Jewish mass suicide to reach heaven, because they didnt want their god to be equal to everyone-elses gods. Because their god was more special, and the Christians aswell, I mean what makes them so special as to just demand everyone treat their god with respect and then not pay donations to the other gods temples. Thats just stupid, and then playing the victim-card when they are thrown out of the roman-empire for not following the rules.

Ieyke:

Danyal:

Ieyke:
I assume and hope that the majority of Escapists are actually Agnostic rather than Atheists.

You actually have to be a complete moron to be an outright Atheist.
Agnostic Atheist is perfectly acceptable.
The key is that you accept that you DO NOT and CAN NOT have all the answers, and whether you believe in a god or not, you accept that it's completely possible that you are wrong. That's the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic Atheist.

Atheists are arrogant fools who somehow assume they know something that is impossible to know.

Ahum? Nobody has called you out on this? You're an arro *atheist*; you think you know something while you're wrong. I'm not going to elaborately explain this again, but Google 'positive and negative atheism'. Positive Atheists state that 'No God Exists'; Negative Atheists state that 'We have no evidence for God, thus, I do not believe in God'. All atheists I've met here are negative atheists; Bill Maher is a negative atheist; Richard Dawkins is a negative atheist.

Captcha; know your rights

Of course no one has called me out on it. I actually know what I'm talking about.
No. I'm an Agnostic Theist.
I logically know there are no gods, but I believe in one, and I know it can't be proven either way.
While seemingly contradictory, there's nothing else you could call me, if you have even a remote clue what you're talking about.

Im an atheist? I believe there is no evidence in god and as such no reason to believe in him. Not that I have given him much more thought than simply choosing not to believe in him, I hold his importance about the same as Sauron. Did a lot of stuff, was very influential. In a book. Which is a bestseller.

No, im not an agnostic because I say there is an uncertainty, this uncertainty means nothing. Because I am as uncertain in god existing as I am uncertain there is a unicorn standing in my backyard right now, I mean. I havent checked for the last couple of hours, but I find it 'highly' unlikely. A christian would say I couldnt rule out the possibility, but I would go as far to say im a 100% certain a unicorn is not standing in my backyard right now, and when I go to check and its not there, I will also say im a 100% certain that the unicorn was never there and didnt just turn invisible when I looked. Sure I 'cant' be a 100% certain, but I work in averages, and the average is 100% here, as I have never seen a unicorn in my backyard. And never seen any evidence of god, my average lands on 100%. Until proven wrong it will still be 100%, therefor it is not something I will put into my calculations in my day-to-day activities. It is 'not' something I will think about a lot.

-Doesnt believe in god, is an atheist. Isnt retarded (Or at least his doctor says so)-

*Sorry for dubblepost, I was reading through the thread and had not realised nobody had replied since I wrote my last post*

Nikolaz72:
Sure I 'cant' be a 100% certain

Those words are all you need to completely invalidate the rest of your post. You're an Agnostic Atheist who is for some reason in denial.

Doesn't matter what you want to call yourself, the definition of the terms dictate what you are. By admitting that it's literally impossible to be sure, you've established that you are indeed an Agnostic Atheist, rather than just an Atheist.

Ieyke:

Nikolaz72:
Sure I 'cant' be a 100% certain

Those words are all you need to completely invalidate the rest of your post. You're an Agnostic Atheist who is for some reason in denial.

Doesn't matter what you want to call yourself, the definition of the terms dictate what you are. By admitting that it's literally impossible to be sure, you've established that you are indeed an Agnostic Atheist, rather than just an Atheist.

But seriously. The ammount of uncertainty is so small it should literally not be taken into account, the odds of a godlike race existing in the universe, while possible. And with the size, quite certain. The odds of them creating earth, and actively watching it. And putting -one- select race on earth in a good place when they die, and ordering this select race to kill one another for a misunderstanding caused by itself... Even if it was there, it wouldnt be anything any of the idiots on earth has thought up. I mean, what 'benevolent' god would make its subjects kill one another because of its own mistake.

Seriously. It is 'not' to be taken into acccount. I said I could not be a 100% certain but... In average, I would still be a 100% certain. Because there is no proof of anything otherwise and as such it should not be taken into account, it cannot be taken into account unless you are stupid. You cant take 'nothing' into account. Its not even a theory, its nothing.

And as ever, so what if we are agnostic atheists or whatever people want to label us with.

Ok, you got us.

Has that changed our case?

No! The evidence for a deity is still as piss-poor as it always has been.

Ieyke:

Nikolaz72:
Sure I 'cant' be a 100% certain

Those words are all you need to completely invalidate the rest of your post. You're an Agnostic Atheist who is for some reason in denial.

Doesn't matter what you want to call yourself, the definition of the terms dictate what you are. By admitting that it's literally impossible to be sure, you've established that you are indeed an Agnostic Atheist, rather than just an Atheist.

Okay, maybe you call negative atheists agnostic atheists. That would mean 99% of all atheists are agnostic atheists. Thus, atheists are not complete morons or arrogant fools, because most of them have the reasonable position of ´agnostic atheism´.

Scale of Dawkins..

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

Of course, the claim that God cannot possibly exist is unprovable bullshit, and therefore, calling '7. Strong Atheists' arrogant fools is quite logical. But fact is, nearly all atheists are "6's". Dawkins describes himself as a 6,999.

Captcha; little bird told me

To be honest, I identify myself as atheist because I really can't believe any more. Around my 18th I just stopped believing, and religion now seems like this hollow, weird archaic thing from another age. I never chose to disbelieve religion, it sort of happened.

And ANYONE who admits ANY amount of inability to be absolutely 100% (not just "close enough" to 100%) sure that their belief or disbelief in deities is true, is an Agnostic.
If you acknowledge you can't be sure, you're not an Atheist or a Theist because those are absolutes. You fall somewhere in the uncertainty of the Agnostics.

You can be an Agnostic Atheist who's 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% positive there's not a supernatural thing in all of time and space.

You can be a regular Agnostic who just doesn't know what to think and figures it could really go either way.

You can be an Agnostic Theist who has SEEN God and knows from personal experience that he's real....except for that .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the time when you think maybe it was just a hallucination.

And you can be every other shade of percentage less than 100% in either direction and still be Agnostic.

Oirish_Martin:
And as ever, so what if we are agnostic atheists or whatever people want to label us with.

Ok, you got us.

Has that changed our case?

No! The evidence for a deity is still as piss-poor as it always has been.

Quite right. It doesn't change anything except the application of proper labeling.
I'm just really pedantic.

I like to be receptive to receptive things.
However, when the pipes fill with sediment, when over-saturation becomes an issue, if no one else can help, and if you can find him, maybe you can hire...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZWaIZ__OE&t=69s

Ieyke:

Quite right. It doesn't change anything except the application of proper labeling.
I'm just really pedantic.

I'd say you're a lot more than that.

Saying something that's 99.9% red is VERY DEFINITELY NOT "RED" AND IF YOU DISAGREE YOU ARE A MORON takes you well out of the realm of pedantry and into simply not listening to people, in both how they back up their arguments and in how they wish to label themselves.

Look at it this way: All variations of Agnostic are a shade of grey, Theist is white, Atheist is black.
It doesn't matter at all how light of a grey something happens to be. Unless it's actually pure white, it's still just really freakin light grey.
It doesn't matter at all how dark of a grey something happens to be. Unless it's actually pure black, it's still just really freakin dark grey.

Being Agnostic or not is a simple binary state of being. You are or you aren't. To say you're one thing but so close to the other that you may as well be the other is meaningless in a binary state. You are or you aren't. There is no in between state.

This doesn't actually matter in practical application where the differences between "black" and "really gorram dark grey" go unnoticed, but just because you don't notice something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Something may look like a duck, sounds like a duck, quack like a duck, smell like a duck, and taste like a duck, but if it happens to be a chicken with a freak case of convergent evolution, it's still not a duck.

So yea, in practice you can tell people whatever you want. "Atheist" will be good enough (most people don't know the difference anyways) and the technicalities won't ever come up, but if you find yourself hooked to a lie detector and asked if it's 100% accurate to say that you're an Atheist, the answer should be "no".

except it wouldn't be because lie detectors like people function on the basis of a persons belief.

for all the smug pedantic and semantic sub classification at your disposal through the creative use of language and creation of compound words you still can't tell people what they think or believe.

there isn't one of us here that truly knows our own mind fully and yet here you are claiming to know the depths of everyone elses...sheesh

for what ? so you can claim no atheist can say there's no god when plugged into a lie detector for the sake of what is possibly an ulterior motive you think no one will click onto (when they can quite easily and pass the test such a machine presents) or because you're some young buck who thinks pigeonholing the universe is how you're gonna supposedly be able to deal with its madness ?

ether way as Danyal said its insulting but at least the second option wouldn't see you enjoying that insult for sport eh ?

here's the kicker: human beings have NEVER needed 100% proof of anything to form concrete personally held beliefs.

hell the vast majority of people you are gonna meet in life will adopt an idea or belief in a spilt second and then seek out the supposedly reasoned position and supposed evidence that supports the view they have already chosen and if that that sounds utterly crazy and an anathema to all deductive reason and logic well...

I'm some sort of theist.

I don't claim no Atheist can say there's no god when plugged into a lie detector. I'm saying these guys aren't actual Atheists.

Certainly there are Atheists who think they genuinely know there is no god and do not even allow for the possibility they might be wrong, and they're foolish.
But that's not the guys in this thread. These guys acknowledge they might be wrong, which makes them a type of Agnostic rather than outright Atheists.
And the hilarious part is that they WON'T pass a polygraph if they say they are indeed Atheists. The very occurrence of this conversation will have seen to that. Where before they might've been fully confident in calling themselves Atheists, now, no matter how they try and worm their way out of the logic, they will always have that nagging bit of them that knows they're actually Agnostic, and that's enough to fail that question on a polygraph test.

I am "spiritual"...focused on wiccan practices.

I'm an atheistic deistic agnostic.
I don't believe in religion, I do believe there is a god but I accept that without being god I can never with total certainty know god truly.

Ieyke:
I assume and hope that the majority of Escapists are actually Agnostic rather than Atheists.

You actually have to be a complete moron to be an outright Atheist.
Agnostic Atheist is perfectly acceptable.
The key is that you accept that you DO NOT and CAN NOT have all the answers, and whether you believe in a god or not, you accept that it's completely possible that you are wrong. That's the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic Atheist.

Atheists are arrogant fools who somehow assume they know something that is impossible to know.

While the same seems like it should logically apply to Theists, I am completely willing to give them a pass on the fact that they're dead certain the divine exists. I know from personal experience the things that can happen to give someone all the evidence they need to have faith in the divine and be absolutely certain they're not just crazy.
We can't prove they didn't experience the divine, and their certainty doesn't come from simply being cocky morons for no reason, so I can respect Theists, even if I know they CAN'T technically be sure of anything and should by strict logic be Agnostic Theists instead.

Just in general, I hope everyone falls into "Agnostic Theist" "Agnostic" or "Agnostic Atheist" instead of "Theist" and "Atheist".

Okay, you are going to need to back several trains up for me there. One, if you want to talk about logical inconsistencies, you have a few of your own in that very post. You cannot assume ALL atheists are "arrogant fools" because not ALL atheists claim they know God does not exist. For instance, myself, my "knowledge" is merely a personal truth, not one I hold the world or anyone else to.

Two, I don't understand why you will "give the pass" to theists. I'm not anti-religion despite my being an atheist; I firmly believe that as long as you're happy and you're not sacrificing babies to your god, you go and get your praise on. However, it is unscientific of anyone to say that something is true with 100% certainty be they atheistic or theistic. I know you said in your post that logically it would apply to both, but it just seems rather hypocritical of you to deny one group that ability simply because you don't like it as much. (Yes, I know there are some really annoying atheists out there. I used to be one of those annoying atheists... Actually, you probably find me annoying right now, but I mean in the "I hate religion" sense.)

Three, your argument is a semantic one and, frankly, is rather silly to apply to normal conversations. Let me use an example to explain. According to sociologists, the vast majority of people are technically bisexual. Only a very small portion of people are exclusively hetero- or homosexual, so technically, anyone who falls in between the extremes is bisexual. However, for daily life, it would be ridiculous to term most people in that way. Take myself for instance. I identify as straight, but I am insanely attracted to Anne Hathaway. However, out of all my interactions with people I actually know, I have only ever been attracted romantically to men and the vast majority of people I am physically attracted to are men. I have only ever been in relationships, both romantic and physical, with men. Should I call myself bi simply because there are a few women I am physically attracted to? No. It's misleading in the basic connotation of the word. Same goes for atheist. I am 99% sure there isn't a God. Yes, I cannot know with certainty that there is no god, but I believe it to be true. It would be misleading for me to call myself Agnostic in the basic definition of the word just because of scientific principles of certainty.

Oh, and by the way, I would pass a polygraph if asked if I'm an atheist. Like I said above, to me, it is a personal truth. Just because it is not a scientific truth does not invalidate the idea that it is true to me.

Loner Jo Jo:

Ieyke:
I assume and hope that the majority of Escapists are actually Agnostic rather than Atheists.

You actually have to be a complete moron to be an outright Atheist.
Agnostic Atheist is perfectly acceptable.
The key is that you accept that you DO NOT and CAN NOT have all the answers, and whether you believe in a god or not, you accept that it's completely possible that you are wrong. That's the difference between an Atheist and an Agnostic Atheist.

Atheists are arrogant fools who somehow assume they know something that is impossible to know.

While the same seems like it should logically apply to Theists, I am completely willing to give them a pass on the fact that they're dead certain the divine exists. I know from personal experience the things that can happen to give someone all the evidence they need to have faith in the divine and be absolutely certain they're not just crazy.
We can't prove they didn't experience the divine, and their certainty doesn't come from simply being cocky morons for no reason, so I can respect Theists, even if I know they CAN'T technically be sure of anything and should by strict logic be Agnostic Theists instead.

Just in general, I hope everyone falls into "Agnostic Theist" "Agnostic" or "Agnostic Atheist" instead of "Theist" and "Atheist".

Okay, you are going to need to back several trains up for me there. One, if you want to talk about logical inconsistencies, you have a few of your own in that very post. You cannot assume ALL atheists are "arrogant fools" because not ALL atheists claim they know God does not exist. For instance, myself, my "knowledge" is merely a personal truth, not one I hold the world or anyone else to.

Two, I don't understand why you will "give the pass" to theists. I'm not anti-religion despite my being an atheist; I firmly believe that as long as you're happy and you're not sacrificing babies to your god, you go and get your praise on. However, it is unscientific of anyone to say that something is true with 100% certainty be they atheistic or theistic. I know you said in your post that logically it would apply to both, but it just seems rather hypocritical of you to deny one group that ability simply because you don't like it as much. (Yes, I know there are some really annoying atheists out there. I used to be one of those annoying atheists... Actually, you probably find me annoying right now, but I mean in the "I hate religion" sense.)

Three, your argument is a semantic one and, frankly, is rather silly to apply to normal conversations. Let me use an example to explain. According to sociologists, the vast majority of people are technically bisexual. Only a very small portion of people are exclusively hetero- or homosexual, so technically, anyone who falls in between the extremes is bisexual. However, for daily life, it would be ridiculous to term most people in that way. Take myself for instance. I identify as straight, but I am insanely attracted to Anne Hathaway. However, out of all my interactions with people I actually know, I have only ever been attracted romantically to men and the vast majority of people I am physically attracted to are men. I have only ever been in relationships, both romantic and physical, with men. Should I call myself bi simply because there are a few women I am physically attracted to? No. It's misleading in the basic connotation of the word. Same goes for atheist. I am 99% sure there isn't a God. Yes, I cannot know with certainty that there is no god, but I believe it to be true. It would be misleading for me to call myself Agnostic in the basic definition of the word just because of scientific principles of certainty.

Oh, and by the way, I would pass a polygraph if asked if I'm an atheist. Like I said above, to me, it is a personal truth. Just because it is not a scientific truth does not invalidate the idea that it is true to me.

Congrats! (and I do mean that sincerely)
You didn't invalidate a thing I've said, but you've risen above the whole mess and found a decent place to stand.
I am indeed arguing pure technicalities.

And it's true, I can't say ALL Atheists are arrogant fools. I didn't. I'll rarely ever make assumptions in absolutes. There's always some weirdo who throws some sort of quirk into the system.
Fact is, you may call yourself an Atheist, and for all practical purposes that may be the most reasonable label to use, but I presume that, in the technical sense, you're an Agnostic Atheist because you can admit that, even though you firmly believe it's not the case, it IS still technically possible that there are some form of divine entities. Yes?
That's my whole argument.
I'm just arguing about technicalities, not practicalities.

For practical purposes it's best to abandon the splitting of hairs and just go with whatever gets people to the closest understanding of your meaning the quickest. Under those terms, sure, there'd be no reason not to call yourself an Atheist.
From that perspective I have no problems with people claiming to be Atheist, though if I was part of the conversation I WOULD bust out the brass tacks and see if you're a real Atheist or not. I'll not fault anyone for the shorthand, but curiosity will make me pick at their brains to see the specifics of what makes them tick. THAT is what happened here.
When the topic at hand is questioning religious stances, I'm gonna bust out the technicalities so I have a real idea what's being said, not just an abridged version that glosses over stuff for ease of communication.

As for letting the Theists off the hook, it's actually NOT a matter of liking one or the other more. What it boils down to is that no one can experience evidence of something specific non-existent. Sure you could say there's a lack of evidence, but you can't say that a lack of evidence is evidence to something not existing. We have no actual evidence of sentient extraterrestrials existing anywhere in the cosmos, but we can logically reason that their existence is almost a mathematical certainty.
So clearly we can't say:
a lack of evidence of existence = evidence of non-existence
This means Atheists are basically going on nothing. Nothing at all.
Some Theists, on the other hand, will actually be people who experience SOMETHING (usually no telling what it actually was) that to them is evidence of a divine entity as real as the Earth they stand on.
In the end, that's all we have to go on in this world, what our senses tell us.
I can't fault them for not thinking themselves crazy when they see something "divine" and, as far as they know, everyone agrees that everything else they've ever seen (the planet, birds, grass, cars, people, etc) is real.
Just because no one else saw a shooting star fly by when you DID doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Know what I mean?

Anyone wanting to prove anything has the burden of proof, so it doesn't really help the Theists' case that they experienced or THINK they experienced something that no one else did, but to them it happened. THEY have proof that is as real to THEM as the city they live in.
I can't hold that against them. *shrug*

That's why Agnostics have the high ground as far as being "right" goes. Atheists and Theists both claim something as fact, and neither has a shred of evidence to share. Agnostics can share the BELIEF of Atheists or Theists but they claim nothing as "fact", because they know that no one can actually prove a damn thing.

But yea, good job stepping over the argument of semantics and making a new and perfectly valid point about practicality. :)

Christian here! From the Brethren in Christ denomination if you're wondering.

I've been through atheism and agnosticism until I finally realized that my beliefs are most accurately explained with pantheism. So, I am a pantheist.

I am 'indifferent'.

Is there a entity that might be classified as a omnipotent/omniscient, or at least powerful enough to enforce its will on everything else? There could be. I do not know, and quite frankly, I do not care.

"Man made" religions or belief-systems (that way you can include secular ideology as well) are palpably false. That is, they do not correspond to an objective reality.

-Edit-

To clarify my position. I do not know if there is a God, and frankly; I don't care. If there's such an entity, it'll probably think likewise. In any case, attempting to (dis)prove the transcendental via human constructions (language, logic, etc.) is a ridiculous passtime that'll have no worthwhile outcome whatsoever.

I am a liberal Christian here.

bojackx:
I'm not trying to be a dick when I talk to religious people, but I just don't get how you can so easily dismiss scientific fact that has been proven, like fossils and all that other crap. I reckon that's where you get all your Atheist folk, because they're logical, and will accept things that are actually correct, and please don't give that whole "fossils are there to test your faith" crap because that makes me cringe so hard.

Again, not trying to be a dick, just a guy with logical thinking.

This right here is the number one reason why I don't usually get a long with most of the atheists I know and why I'm kind of "in the closet" about being a theist.

I'm what you could call a theist... Though what religion I am is certainly confusing me. I was baptized and raised catholic, I still have respect for the catholic church and catholic god but have been recently... Fascinated with some of the "old" Pagan Faiths of Europe. They were the faiths of my ancestors after all, and their more modern incarnations seem to share some of the same ideas as me when it comes to religious beliefs. Namely, respect people, don't shove your faith down their throat, and there's nothing saying their God can't exist as well.

I am not an atheist, I don't follow any religions rather I just prefer to be open minded about it. I like some of the ideals that religions teach, especially Buddisim but I don't follow anything in particular.

I do hate that certain kind of atheist though, the one that looks down on everyone for not being an atheist like them. I really hate those guys.

I am a 6 on the atheist scale that was pointed out earlier. However, even if I am wrong and there is a god, I do not see any evidence of interference that he or she has put on Earth. Thus, we should not live on the basis that there is a god who cares about what we do. I am a strict anti-theist especially as far as the law goes as theistic based laws have never caused anything but hate and grievances. On top of that, if a god wont take the .01 seconds out of his infinite life to reveal himself, then I do not see any reason to worship, invest in or care about the god. I would be surprised if there was a god but I am pretty sure there is not a god and live my life without any assumption of an afterlife or god.

Ieyke:

a lack of evidence of existence = evidence of non-existence

This means Atheists are basically going on nothing. Nothing at all.
Some Theists, on the other hand, will actually be people who experience SOMETHING (usually no telling what it actually was) that to them is evidence of a divine entity as real as the Earth they stand on.
In the end, that's all we have to go on in this world, what our senses tell us.

That's why Agnostics have the high ground as far as being "right" goes. Atheists and Theists both claim something as fact, and neither has a shred of evidence to share. Agnostics can share the BELIEF of Atheists or Theists but they claim nothing as "fact", because they know that no one can actually prove a damn thing.

Your statement, geberally, is true, the first one, however id make a slight alteration.

Id say there was an indirect link between lack of evidence and evidence of non existance. That an "approximation" of reason to NOT think something is the weight of evidence it doesnt show. That sounds stupid when i read it but i hope you get what im trying to say.

For example. I have just now invented the character paul the flying octopus jam spreader. Paul demands one jar of jam be ritually sacrificed by smashing every day. When you weigh up, right now do it, on his existance you cant really argue anything since there are ZERO facts relating to him whatsoever an internal discussion is impossible discussing evidence that DOES exist. Therefore you logically must resort to using the concept of evidence that ISNT present to assist in the arguement.

If your point was correct you, right now, MUST be puzzling over pauls existance. To keep your point valid you must admit to me, at this moment, that YOU seriously, totally seriously, consider starting a new life as a jam jar smasher. I doubt you are. Since you cannot KNOW Paul doesnt exist the idea surely has credence and you are an "agnostic" of Paul. 50-50 chance he exists right? It will forever be a daily struggle to decide if he exists. Or not. As i assume. You probably dismissed him the second i described him. As you should. The default position for any claim made is negative. Dragons, elves, paul, these are all things no sane person puts faith into because there is simply no evidence supporting them. We can PRESUME since no evidence exists that there is a relation between that and the probibility of pauls existance. See what im driving at? Its a good indicator.

Atheists dont have "nothing". Or in fact they do! But thats the whole point. Nothing is a very good indicator for no, so id say a good default position is to dismiss claims without evidence 100% of the time. Otherwise we would forever spend our lives seriously considering the existance of paul.

I feel that anyones conclusions on God are their own business. I have very precise criteria for what makes reality and what is real. I am happy to reject something that would otherwise comfort me in the persuit of my own personal truths. I value the persuit of truth. And a part of that is NOT to force everyone else to persure YOUR truth, since in my mind the truth is the truth regardless of what others think and i have no need to insult them or demean them to validate my views. On that basis religious people have a place and deserve respect and tolerance in our society.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked