What I don't understand..

[Disarm]

How athiests smugly comment that THEY haven't caused wars/poverty/problems like religion has.. Whenever I'm in an athiest vs theist type discussion, especially related to Islam, athiests always pitch in about all of the bad which religion has done to the world, and as a result all religious people are almost tainted because of their religion. I hate it how theres always someone, somewhere, yabbering on about the sins of religion.
(I'm not saying anyone on here does this, but I know a lot of people who do..)

They do this even when I point out that religion can be an excuse, not cause, for war, but most wars/conflicts that spring to mind are not related to religion at all..both major world wars, the expanding of the Roman Empire, the thirty years war...

Athiests aren't a cohesive group with a set belief system (system, not just one belief) or with similar ideologies, so are you even able to compare athiesm to a certain religion and say that athiests are better in ANY category?

I'm gonna start rambling soon, but my question is essentially do you believe athiests are better than theists? Please explain why, because I'm really at a loss to work out how one can justify that view while taking everything into consideration. Secondly, if you do believe athiests are better than theists and refuse to believe otherwise, aren't you just as bad as the theists who refuse to listen to, for example, solid facts on things such as evolution, jesus etc?

[soulrebel51]

when i think of atheists, i think of the stupidest most ignorant people on earth.
they are blind to the miracles all around us.
And just what miracles would these be?

[BlackGuardXIII]

And just what miracles would these be?

Atheists are just as welcome to being correct as religious folk, to me. I was a very informed, logical, and cunning atheist, who could tie most people up in knots with their own words when they defended their faith.
Well, just cuz you never saw a miracle is no reason for michael to be so rude.
I have seen too many to allow me to choose to be atheist any longer. Saw them all my life, but just felt amused before. This year it got serious.
I have many that defy logic, and most would just call me either nuts or a liar, so I will instead share some basic ones. What is in a drop of water? magnify it a trillion times, and it becomes an awesome, to me, miraculous thing.
How about a blade of grass, Edison said when we can make one, he'll be impressed.

[duckandmiss]

How athiests smugly comment that THEY haven't caused wars/poverty/problems like religion has.. Whenever I'm in an athiest vs theist type discussion, especially related to Islam, athiests always pitch in about all of the bad which religion has done to the world, and as a result all religious people are almost tainted because of their religion. I hate it how theres always someone, somewhere, yabbering on about the sins of religion.
(I'm not saying anyone on here does this, but I know a lot of people who do..)

They do this even when I point out that religion can be an excuse, not cause, for war, but most wars/conflicts that spring to mind are not related to religion at all..both major world wars, the expanding of the Roman Empire, the thirty years war...

Athiests aren't a cohesive group with a set belief system (system, not just one belief) or with similar ideologies, so are you even able to compare athiesm to a certain religion and say that athiests are better in ANY category?

I'm gonna start rambling soon, but my question is essentially do you believe athiests are better than theists? Please explain why, because I'm really at a loss to work out how one can justify that view while taking everything into consideration. Secondly, if you do believe athiests are better than theists and refuse to believe otherwise, aren't you just as bad as the theists who refuse to listen to, for example, solid facts on things such as evolution, jesus etc?when i think of atheists, i think of the stupidest most ignorant people on earth.
they are blind to the miracles all around us.

i am not fond of islam
but i think atheists are worse

People are people, in every religion or non-religion. If you use your religion or lack thereof as an excuse for any kind of hate you are a fool. If you lump all people of a particular religion or non-religion into one stereotype or judge them as a whole, you are a bigger fool.

[Kandahar]

Well, just cuz you never saw a miracle is no reason for michael to be so rude.
I have seen too many to allow me to choose to be atheist any longer. Saw them all my life, but just felt amused before. This year it got serious.
I have many that defy logic, and most would just call me either nuts or a liar,It doesn't mean your "nuts," but aren't psychology, probability, and perhaps a hidden desire to experience these miracles, much better explanations than an invisible god in the sky?

What is in a drop of water? magnify it a trillion times, and it becomes an awesome, to me, miraculous thing.To me it looks like two hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom.

How about a blade of grass, Edison said when we can make one, he'll be impressed.That day isn't that far off. It's already possible if you count cloning, and we are no more than 10-20 years from being able to create life from scratch in the laboratory.

[atropine]

nanotech should be capable of creating grass, shouldnt it?

as for the topic..
anyone saying religion is the cause of all war, is stupid. and anyone who says athiest dont cause war, also are. although, i think the main thing that people focus on, are that (i cant think of any, but there may well be) not many athiests start wars, due to their belief. while many wars have been caused due to a religious belief, how many have been started because someone wasnt happy that people didnt agree with their disbelief? (if that made any sense).. i think this is where people come from in this kind of debate.. while religion has started a lot of wars, its also bonded a lot of people together and created a lot of good in the world.. most things in the world have pro's and con's right?

and michael, its people like you who keep me far from being religious. while you dont seem as fanatical as the likes of cambell, you seem just as self-righteous. you call athiests (as a group, a large stereotype) ignorant, while i bet you would ignorantly refute anything from any belief system apart from your own. people like blackguard have it sorted. they know what they believe, but have the integrity to discuss, debate and consider what others have to say. you call athiests stupid and ignorant, how do you stand on agnostics? are they one in the same to you?

[phillyrp314]

when i think of atheists, i think of the stupidest most ignorant people on earth.
they are blind to the miracles all around us.

i am not fond of islam
but i think atheists are worse
When I think of fundamentalist religious zealots I think of brainwashed, conditioned morons who only spout their nonsense because they lack the intelligence to fully understand the WHOLE world around them, rather than their own dillusional "pretty fluffy bunny" world.

[Disarm]

If there are miracles all around us (Michael seems to say there is a large quantity of miracles), then are they miracles? definition: "Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed." If there are so many 'miracles', they clearly are a part of the natural course of things, not contrary to this course, and thus are not miracles.

I'm religious, don't get me wrong, but the only thing I consider to be a miracle in a world like this is the utter ignorance of many people, athiests and theists alike.

[BlackGuardXIII]

nanotech should be capable of creating grass, shouldnt it?

as for the topic..
anyone saying religion is the cause of all war, is stupid. and anyone who says athiest dont cause war, also are. although, i think the main thing that people focus on, are that (i cant think of any, but there may well be) not many athiests start wars, due to their belief. while many wars have been caused due to a religious belief, how many have been started because someone wasnt happy that people didnt agree with their disbelief? (if that made any sense).. i think this is where people come from in this kind of debate.. while religion has started a lot of wars, its also bonded a lot of people together and created a lot of good in the world.. most things in the world have pro's and con's right?

and michael, its people like you who keep me far from being religious. while you dont seem as fanatical as the likes of cambell, you seem just as self-righteous. you call athiests (as a group, a large stereotype) ignorant, while i bet you would ignorantly refute anything from any belief system apart from your own. people like blackguard have it sorted. they know what they believe, but have the integrity to discuss, debate and consider what others have to say. you call athiests stupid and ignorant, how do you stand on agnostics? are they one in the same to you?

I am humbled, and thank you for your compliment. I feel I still need to learn much more.
Re: nanotech
If Edison meant 'make from scratch', then we'd need to take basic elements, make proteins, make dna, then chromosomes, etc. I am doubtful we could do that.
That is just my take on his meaning though, and could be wrong.

[BlackGuardXIII]

If there are miracles all around us (Michael seems to say there is a large quantity of miracles), then are they miracles? definition: "Specifically: An event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature; a supernatural event, or one transcending the ordinary laws by which the universe is governed." If there are so many 'miracles', they clearly are a part of the natural course of things, not contrary to this course, and thus are not miracles.

I'm religious, don't get me wrong, but the only thing I consider to be a miracle in a world like this is the utter ignorance of many people, athiests and theists alike.
"there are 2 ways to live your life, as though nothing is a miracle, and as though everything is a miracle." Albert Einstein


I do agree that there is no lack of those who refuse to think for themselves, but I accept that that is their path. Ignorance is bliss they say.
I have seen things that defy science all my life, and they likely number in the hundreds, but what do I call them if not miracles?

[FreakyJoeMan]

I have seen things that defy science all my life, and they likely number in the hundreds, but what do I call them if not miracles?
Call 'em neat. "Miricles" are usually associated with somethin diety-like. Now, I don't believe in dieties, but when I see somethin "miraculus" I'm not goin to automatically dismiss it. An honestly, they really don't phase my faith (or lack thereof, I should say). When I see or hear of somethin like that, my responce is usually along the lines of "Damn, that's cool." Jus cuz we can't explain why somethin happens, doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation. We're only hindured by our lack of knowladge on the mechanisms of the universe.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Call 'em neat. "Miricles" are usually associated with somethin diety-like. Now, I don't believe in dieties, but when I see somethin "miraculus" I'm not goin to automatically dismiss it. An honestly, they really don't phase my faith (or lack thereof, I should say). When I see or hear of somethin like that, my responce is usually along the lines of "Damn, that's cool." Jus cuz we can't explain why somethin happens, doesn't mean there isn't a scientific explanation. We're only hindured by our lack of knowladge on the mechanisms of the universe.
I mean what do I call them to denote that they are different. An exotic car is neat. A spherical house is neat. But when I say miracle, I mean an event that flies in the face of what scientists believe is possible, like an exact view of a future scenario, or astral travel, etc.
But it was only in reply to the comment that if miracles are numerous, they aren't miracles. I guess I disagree, they still are to me.

[gnrm23]

when i think of atheists, i think of the stupidest most ignorant people on earth.


oy...
stupid atheists...
from buddha & mahavira clear up to bertram russell & carl sagan...


thank goodness for smart christians, from the bishop of alexandria (who had the great library burned, after having the chief librarian, hypatia, crully murdered) to the likes ron reagan, pat robertson, & george dubya bush...

[J_Lazarus]

oy...
stupid atheists...
from buddha & mahavira clear up to bertram russell & carl sagan...


thank goodness for smart christians, from the bishop of alexandria (who had the great library burned, after having the chief librarian, hypatia, crully murdered) to the likes ron reagan, pat robertson, & george dubya bush... heh, mhmm. We're the stupidest people on earth, we are. Atheists are so foolish. (not that Michael's argument from miracles hasn't been shown to be ridiculous by almost every philosophy of religion book written by an atheist, and not that the vast majority of theistic philosophers haven't realized that arguing from miracles is a completely absurd thing to do).

But there you have it. :)

And as for the person who started this thread: It goes both ways. Many atheists bring up the immorality of theism because it has been the cause or *a* cause of atrocities in the past, and theists attempt to say that atheists are immoral by necessity (e.g. Maritain), and cannot be ethical without God.

The difference of course is that the theistic argument is mostly against atheists individually, while the atheistic argument is usually against theism as a concept. The set of beliefs within various perspectives of theism have certainly influenced war and other atrocities throughout history - and while we see atheists doing atrocious things as well (e.g. Mao and Stalin), we do not see them doing it on account of their atheism (but rather for some other odd reason - like Mao's views on the desirability of constant revolution, and Stalin's paranoia, etc.).

This, however, does not mean one individual is more moral than the other if they are compared as theist vs. atheist - because the morality of individuals comes down to their individual actions, and certainly neither is immoral by necessity because of which ever title they carry. Simply, the usual atheistic argument is that the application of theism as a concept has led to many atrocities because of the set of certain beliefs found therein, which many people have taken to extreme measures (sometimes mistakenly so - e.g. Hitler's anti-semitism is not necessarily supported by scripture, and is certainly not supported to the degree which he took it to, and sometimes rightly so - e.g. the Salem Witchcraft Trials are very much supported by scripture).

In short, if a person argues that either a theist or atheist is immoral individually simply because they are a theist or an atheist, they are wrong. If they argue that theism or atheism are immoral as applied concepts, they may or may not have a valid argument.

- Laz

[BlackGuardXIII]

oy...
stupid atheists...
from buddha & mahavira clear up to bertram russell & carl sagan...


thank goodness for smart christians, from the bishop of alexandria (who had the great library burned, after having the chief librarian, hypatia, crully murdered) to the likes ron reagan, pat robertson, & george dubya bush...
Couple of things, I am so glad that you at least make your sarcasm clear enough for me to see it. thanx.
re Buddha: The way I see it he was a theist who taught not to spend time on the pursuit of understanding God, as it was a futile goal.
I thought Hypatia was the Dean of Sciences at the Library, and a master of all of them. She was the most learned person on earth, quite possibly, from my readings.
Cyril and his good Christians flayed the flesh from her bones with abalone shells.

[Disarm]

The difference of course is that the theistic argument is mostly against atheists individually, while the atheistic argument is usually against theism as a concept. The set of beliefs within various perspectives of theism have certainly influenced war and other atrocities throughout history - and while we see atheists doing atrocious things as well (e.g. Mao and Stalin), we do not see them doing it on account of their atheism (but rather for some other odd reason - like Mao's views on the desirability of constant revolution, and Stalin's paranoia, etc.). Yeah, I think that's the problem. With theists there's a full common belief system and set of rules, and thus you could argue anything done by one religious person echoes the feelings/wishes of their entire religion. *remembers being called jesus killer* A bit of a shaky argument, but there's no way for theists to reverse that to attack athiests, unless the actions of one person were directly related to their belief that g-d does not exist...

So maybe my real problem is I can't historically throw it back in their faces that athiests are just as bad. I'd like to think athiests are just being smug and irrational though :P . However, I do think that if in order to attack beliefs you have to resort to blaming their beliefs for events that happened of one person's own bat, you're on shaky ground yourself.

thank goodness for smart christians, from the bishop of alexandria (who had the great library burned, after having the chief librarian, hypatia, crully murdered) to the likes ron reagan, pat robertson, & george dubya bush... Thank goodness for the smart athiests, from those who killed great scientists such as archimedes (who says theists have all the fun in killing great contributors to mankind?), to those who oppose gay marriage and stem cell research (not that I in any way approve) despite their eyes being 'opened' by science, to those who murder, rape, bomb, cheat on, decieve, and assualt innocent people, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US.

[Kandahar]

Thank goodness for the smart athiests, from those who killed great scientists such as archimedes (who says theists have all the fun in killing great contributors to mankind?), to those who oppose gay marriage and stem cell research (not that I in any way approve) despite their eyes being 'opened' by science.I have never met a single atheist opposed to gay marriage or stem cell research (and I know a lot of atheists). Do such people actually exist? If so, what possible rationale could they offer to justify their positions? At least when Christians argue against civil rights, they can just pull out their Bible and find the appropriate passages.

I doubt that more than 1% of atheists actually hold those positions you listed.

[Disarm]

I have never met a single atheist opposed to gay marriage or stem cell research (and I know a lot of atheists). Do such people actually exist? If so, what possible rationale could they offer to justify their positions? At least when Christians argue against civil rights, they can just pull out their Bible and find the appropriate passages.

I doubt that more than 1% of atheists actually hold those positions you listed.
Well, my dear, you don't know too many people. I love how you only address what you know you can respond to, rather than considering the point. However..

Should you properly examine both stem cell research and gay marriage you'd find a far more complex issue than 'the bible says its bad' vs advancement of the human race. You really want a list of reasons? Cause even if I should go to a bunch of athiests and ask them how they feel, it would be inadmissable as I can't prove they think that way (or that they're actual people), so any athiests opposing either please speak up if you wish. I only like to give valid reasons, but many people are content with deluding themselves, so sorry if the following offends anyone, most of it is not representative of my personal views. This is by no means a comprehensive list of reasons against either stem cell research or gay marriage anyway.

Stem cell research:
- whether you believe people have a soul or not, or babies deserve to live or not, many people percieve destroying an embryo as killing a human being. Suprisingly, not only theists have a problem with this :rolleyes:
- Stem cell research is considered a gateway to cloning, and many scientists believe that the best use of cloning would be to 'breed' a being identical to ourselves, cut out all of its organs, and implant them in other people. Suprisingly, not only theists have a problem with ignoring the rights of another human being (whether it was engineered or not).
- Many people consider removing the life of one, to improve the life of another, not only unethical but also a situation in which we lose more than gain.

Gay marriage:
- one of the initial purposes of marriage being LEGAL, not just RELIGIOUS, was to ensure that the father of the baby was responsible for the child. This is inapplicable to gays, and is a purely legal issue. Suprisingly, not only theists are interested in law.
- The other main purpose of making marriage a legal bond was that in order to get better (educated/healthier/safer etc) children, the government provided assistance in the form of subsidies for married couples. This goes on today. The government would have to provide subsidies for gays, and in many cases, get no return on their investment. Gay marriage would destroy the purpose of governmental subsidies, in many eyes.
- Despite what you may think, there are just as many ignorant athiests who believe homosexuality is unnatural, as there are ignorant theists. Theists can use their religion as an excuse, athiests can't, just because there is an excuse there doesn't make either group better.
- Should gays have children, they will surely be raised gay and there will be more homosexuals. I'm suprised anyone at all believes this, but if you want to get nasty, an athiest gave me that reason.
- Many people believe that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. Suprisingly, not just theists believe this :rolleyes:

Just because athiests don't believe in g-d, it doesn't mean they are level headed, informed people. And just because someone opposes something, it doesn't mean there aren't legitimate reasons for that to be opposed. Like i said, athiests murder, rape, bomb, cheat on, decieve, and assualt innocent people, JUST LIKE THE REST OF US. Just because you don't, doesn't mean that a group that you identify with doesn't either. That's what we like to call ignorant, idealistic stereotyping.

[thumontico]

Those against stem cell research should also be against egg-eating.

[Kandahar]

Well, my dear, you don't know too many people. I love how you only address what you know you can respond to, rather than considering the point. However..Wow, such hostility from an innocent comment that I made. I only inquired if such people actually existed, as I've never met a homophobic atheist in my life. I won't get drawn into a pissing contest between you and Laz, no matter how much you try and bait me.

Most of the reasons you offer why atheists might oppose stem cell research and gay marriage are just plain stupid. So stupid, in fact, that even Christian fundamentalists have stopped trying to use them. Stem cell research a "gateway" to reproductive human cloning, resulting in the murder of the clone and the harvesting of their organs? You've gotta be kidding me. Occasionally I listen to The 700 Club for comic relief, and that's a new one even to me.


Just because athiests don't believe in g-d, it doesn't mean they are level headed, informed people.Overall, that is correct. However, they do tend to be more level-headed on issues like stem-cell research and gay marriage because they can rely entirely on logic rather than their religion.

Just because you don't, doesn't mean that a group that you identify with doesn't either. That's what we like to call ignorant, idealistic stereotyping.
Again, all I said was that I have never met a single atheist opposed to stem cell research or gay marriage. Even aside from people I know, I can't think of a single secular pundit in the mainstream media that holds the positions you described, which makes me wonder if such people actually exist. As I said before, I doubt more than 1% of atheists hold those positions.

[_CT]

Perhaps stop trying to lump atheists together like you can do with Regious groups. Atheists are much more individual in their ideas which is the fucking great thing about it. I mean, ofcourse there are atheists out there with absolutely retarded other ideas, we're still talking about humans here. I totally acknowledge the fact that many atheists are probably complete fucking hypocrite assholes. So what? With pointing out the hypocracies within and between for example the different branches of Christianity you might be able to prove some kind of point. But doing so with atheism just shows you dont understand it at all.

[Jatom]

oy...
stupid atheists...
from buddha & mahavira clear up to bertram russell & carl sagan...I would honestly have to say that in general, theist tend to be more stupid than atheist. Where as most atheist can usually give some sort of valid logical argument for their belief (i.e. their position is usually more thought out, and usually hindges in the existence of evil) the thiest usually seems more concerned with subjective feeling then objective reasoning (How can a God exist with all the evil in the world? vs How can God not exist since I feel Him in my heart?) That said, there are many smart people on both sides.

[J_Lazarus]

Wow, such hostility from an innocent comment that I made. I only inquired if such people actually existed, as I've never met a homophobic atheist in my life. I won't get drawn into a pissing contest between you and Laz, no matter how much you try and bait me. ...wtf are you talking about?

Secondly,to Disarm:

I made explicit the way that atheists use this "argument from religious application". Atheists attack theism as a concept, not theists individually. You agreed, but then in subsequent posts went on to attack the character of certain sets of atheists individually. So you've fallen directly into the trap that I informed you would be entirely wrong if either side tried to argue that point.

Also, no, Kandahar is absolutely right about the atheistic consensus concerning these issues. There are certainly quite a few atheists that are strict on the subject of abortion, - including myself, but arguments produced by atheists against gay marriage and stem cell research are virtually non-existent. Perhaps you've met one or two in your lifetime, but they must be just about the only one or two that exist.

I'd also agree with Kandahar that your argument on cloning is ridiculously far-fetched, and I've never heard the idea of killing cloned humans and taking their organs, etc. ever supported by any respectable scientist in any relevant field (or for that matter, any relevant scientist period, let alone respectable). I've also never heard it used by any conservative atheist, ever.

Support for gay marriage is overwhelming from the atheistic side. I don't know what types of atheists you're meeting, but they certainly are an extreme, extreme, extreme minority.

- Laz

[J_Lazarus]

I would honestly have to say that in general, theist tend to be more stupid than atheist. Where as most atheist can usually give some sort of valid logical argument for their belief (i.e. their position is usually more thought out, and usually hindges in the existence of evil) the thiest usually seems more concerned with subjective feeling then objective reasoning (How can a God exist with all the evil in the world? vs How can God not exist since I feel Him in my heart?) That said, there are many smart people on both sides.
You would be AMAZED at how many stupid atheists there are. Atheism has gained the reputation of being generally more intelligence-inclined than theism, because naturalism is the prevalent worldview which includes atheism. But, in fact, there are a whole slew of philosophical stances that theists can't fit into due to their belief in God, that atheists can. Relativism, Epistemological Nihilism, extreme forms of Objectivism, certain types of New-Age hogwash, etc.

You're entirely correct, though, about intelligent folk existing on both sides.

- Laz

[Jatom]

You would be AMAZED at how many stupid atheists there are. Atheism has gained the reputation of being generally more intelligence-inclined than theism, because naturalism is the prevalent worldview which includes atheism. But, in fact, there are a whole slew of philosophical stances that theists can't fit into due to their belief in God, that atheists can. Relativism, Epistemological Nihilism, extreme forms of Objectivism, certain types of New-Age hogwash, etc.

You're entirely correct, though, about intelligent folk existing on both sides.

- LazWell James, the funny thing is I DO know about the sheer volume of absurd philosophical stances that can be classified as atheological (done a bit studying in my short life :) ) I just find that the average theist spends less time thinking about "why" and simply accepts their position, where as the average atheist tends more to question certain social norms, and from that builds a more solid foundation.

[Razorofoccam]

How athiests smugly comment that THEY haven't caused wars/poverty/problems like religion has.. Whenever I'm in an athiest vs theist type discussion, especially related to Islam, athiests always pitch in about all of the bad which religion has done to the world, and as a result all religious people are almost tainted because of their religion. I hate it how theres always someone, somewhere, yabbering on about the sins of religion.
(I'm not saying anyone on here does this, but I know a lot of people who do..)

They do this even when I point out that religion can be an excuse, not cause, for war, but most wars/conflicts that spring to mind are not related to religion at all..both major world wars, the expanding of the Roman Empire, the thirty years war...

Athiests aren't a cohesive group with a set belief system (system, not just one belief) or with similar ideologies, so are you even able to compare athiesm to a certain religion and say that athiests are better in ANY category?

I'm gonna start rambling soon, but my question is essentially do you believe athiests are better than theists? Please explain why, because I'm really at a loss to work out how one can justify that view while taking everything into consideration. Secondly, if you do believe athiests are better than theists and refuse to believe otherwise, aren't you just as bad as the theists who refuse to listen to, for example, solid facts on things such as evolution, jesus etc?
Disarm

Another perspective is this...

Athiests are those who..'do not desire to believe in a god'
Theists are those that 'do desire to believe in a god.'
..............................
And agnostics are those that desire neither...

To occam. the arguemants of both atheists and theists...
Are based in desire.
To desire something is corruption of impartial understanding of the thing.

You hate it when athiests say that religion causes all wars...
True..that is crap.
But religion is the cause of SOME wars.
Athiests hate it when theists say athiests are denying a god they 'really' believe in.

Occam is an agnostic.
He is 'without god'
That does not mean he believes 'there is no god.'
Or..does it mean he believes 'there is.'

His method allows no other conclusion....
The existance of god is a question humans cannot answer with our
current understanding.
If he allows desire to 'ignore' method.
And believe whatever ego WANTS to believe...

Then his path is a lie.
His Understanding cast aside.
His purpose, given to a concept without evidence.

Think on this...

How is it a human can have NO desire
for a god to BE
Or not to BE
For occam is such.

Occam

[J_Lazarus]

Well James, the funny thing is I DO know about the sheer volume of absurd philosophical stances that can be classified as atheological (done a bit studying in my short life :) ) I just find that the average theist spends less time thinking about "why" and simply accepts their position, where as the average atheist tends more to question certain social norms, and from that builds a more solid foundation.
lol - fair enough. :p

- Laz

[Disarm]

Secondly,to Disarm:

I made explicit the way that atheists use this "argument from religious application". Atheists attack theism as a concept, not theists individually. You agreed, but then in subsequent posts went on to attack the character of certain sets of atheists individually. So you've fallen directly into the trap that I informed you would be entirely wrong if either side tried to argue that point.

Also, no, Kandahar is absolutely right about the atheistic consensus concerning these issues. There are certainly quite a few atheists that are strict on the subject of abortion, - including myself, but arguments produced by atheists against gay marriage and stem cell research are virtually non-existent. Perhaps you've met one or two in your lifetime, but they must be just about the only one or two that exist.

I'd also agree with Kandahar that your argument on cloning is ridiculously far-fetched, and I've never heard the idea of killing cloned humans and taking their organs, etc. ever supported by any respectable scientist in any relevant field (or for that matter, any relevant scientist period, let alone respectable). I've also never heard it used by any conservative atheist, ever.

Support for gay marriage is overwhelming from the atheistic side. I don't know what types of atheists you're meeting, but they certainly are an extreme, extreme, extreme minority.

- Laz
I was agreeing with you. I wasn't attacking athiests at all in relation to Kandahar, which I thought would be understood from the rest of my post- I was pointing out we're all the same when it comes down to it. Gay marriage is opposed largely by theists because that's about the only excuse left, (however I refuse to believe that only thiests are homophobes). If I knew I was going to be attacked so much on such a small part of my post I would have thought it out in more detail, but gay marriage and stem cell research sprung to mind.

I'm glad you all commented on my point about stem cell research leading to body harvesting, although you did miss the point. (like I said some of what I said is not representative of my personal views, I just put a few non-religion related views) I got the point from the same girl who came up with brilliant questions such as "which world war was hitler in?" the day before our history exam, and "where do jews come from?", go figure. lol

My point was that when it comes down to it, we are all alike, and we justify our views in different ways, but we are all just as capable of taking either side of the argument. It's quite strange, really, because nearly all of us seem to agree athiests are just as stupid as theists, (as much as some would like to think so, you cannot be defined as either purely by judging mental ability,) which was my point, yet we're still arguing.

[atropine]

just a note.. ive known many people, claimed atheists who were againsts gays at any level, especially marriage..

[Spasmolytic]

I'm agnostic, which is FAR from atheism...and to say otherwise is to express extreme stupidity.

Religion has caused -far- more war and terrible things than Athiests, or Agnostics...look through history and you'll see that. Indeed, you're correct, religion is used as an excuse as well. In my opinion religion has even done more harm to the world in modern times than it has done good. I simply cant see why or how someone can say one or another religion is "right" when there are or might as well be millions of different religions around the world.

But anyway...

I dont judge people based on religion, but -anyone- that insists that I am wrong or right for what I believe in, based on religion, is making a foolish assumption in my opinion.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I'm agnostic, which is FAR from atheism...and to say otherwise is to express extreme stupidity.

Religion has caused -far- more war and terrible things than Athiests, or Agnostics...look through history and you'll see that. Indeed, you're correct, religion is used as an excuse as well. In my opinion religion has even done more harm to the world in modern times than it has done good. I simply cant see why or how someone can say one or another religion is "right" when there are or might as well be millions of different religions around the world.

But anyway...

I dont judge people based on religion, but -anyone- that insists that I am wrong or right for what I believe in, based on religion, is making a foolish assumption in my opinion.
Atheism is a historically recent concept, so of course it has not been cited as the origin of nearly as much fighting. Yes, bad things are done in God's name constantly, but I feel far more good than harm has come of religion.
Look around the world at the organizations that do charitable work in nations that are full of people otherwise left to die. Most all are religious groups volunteering to help.
I agree, no one faith is the right one, and also agree that no one can say anyone else's faith is wrong. It may be wrong for me, but that doesn't make it wrong for everyone.

[Hikaru Zero]

Atheism is a historically recent concept, so of course it has not been cited as the origin of nearly as much fighting.

That's not true, actually ... atheism has existed for as long as theism has. It has just never been as prevalant as it is today ... FINALLY, people have begun to understand the evils of certain religious ways of thinking! It only took ... what ... 9 crusades (and a children's crusade) and half of another millenium!

[J_Lazarus]

I'm agnostic, which is FAR from atheism...and to say otherwise is to express extreme stupidity.

Religion has caused -far- more war and terrible things than Athiests, or Agnostics...look through history and you'll see that. Indeed, you're correct, religion is used as an excuse as well. In my opinion religion has even done more harm to the world in modern times than it has done good. I simply cant see why or how someone can say one or another religion is "right" when there are or might as well be millions of different religions around the world.

But anyway...

I dont judge people based on religion, but -anyone- that insists that I am wrong or right for what I believe in, based on religion, is making a foolish assumption in my opinion.
Well your first statement actually displays that you suffer from a misconception yourself. Agnosticism is not seperate from either atheism or theism. Look around, I've discussed this alot in numerous threads. George Smith's book might help you out, too.

- Laz

[_CT]

The only 'good' thing about religion is that it sort-of promotes beeing nice to your fellow men but usually only because otherwise you cant go to heaven or get reincarnated as a roach or something.

[Disarm]

that's a bit cynical of ya

[BlackGuardXIII]

That's not true, actually ... atheism has existed for as long as theism has. It has just never been as prevalant as it is today ... FINALLY, people have begun to understand the evils of certain religious ways of thinking! It only took ... what ... 9 crusades (and a children's crusade) and half of another millenium!
I do not doubt that the concept there is no God is ancient, I just have not read much info. about ancient atheists, whereas I've read a ton of ancient theism.
Do you know of some source I could read that would show an example of ancient atheism, or actually any atheistic info. from before the Enlightenment would be appreciated.
thanx, BG13

[Spasmolytic]

Atheism is a historically recent concept, so of course it has not been cited as the origin of nearly as much fighting. Yes, bad things are done in God's name constantly, but I feel far more good than harm has come of religion.
Look around the world at the organizations that do charitable work in nations that are full of people otherwise left to die. Most all are religious groups volunteering to help.
I agree, no one faith is the right one, and also agree that no one can say anyone else's faith is wrong. It may be wrong for me, but that doesn't make it wrong for everyone. I dont think that religion does much good in reality. I see multi-million dollar churches for being built, and tons of acres of lands in the Rainforests being sold by churches...and in my own state I see thousands of starving people and children. I see tons of good people that never get the opportunity to get a higher education because they cannot afford it...then I see a million dollar statue going up in front of the peoples churches. Then I see countries at war, and genocide being acted out on people...and our good nation "under god" refuses to help "fellow christians" from being wiped out of existence because there is no financial benefit coming from the region. I walk around my campus and nearly every day I have people so angry at me that they spit when they talk to me...telling me how hells fury will be my resting place, when all i want to do is go get some sushi and tea from the cafeteria...

Not all acts of religion are bad, but I think in the modern day and in history its not for the masses, its for the elite to gain power and prestige.

Selling rainforests...what do I mean? Look here...
http://www.eaglestar.net/Eagle/snsb.html
churches selling rainforests for timber land...let me tell you how good that is for our world...but hey, they'll get a big ass church out of it...so its all good, right?

[Spasmolytic]

Well your first statement actually displays that you suffer from a misconception yourself. Agnosticism is not seperate from either atheism or theism. Look around, I've discussed this alot in numerous threads. George Smith's book might help you out, too.

- Laz
I know what agnosticism is...mirriam webster can tell me that.
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic&x=0&y=0
And it is most definately -far- from atheism. There is a big difference between thinking something is unknowable and -knowing and believing- that something does not exist, with certainty.

I simply say that I'm agnostic for the general idea...my beliefs are very strange and comletely individualistic. I think everyones spiritual experience should be an individual experience though. One of my big problems with religion is that it puts limits on people, when spirituality is something that is supposedly limitless and boundless...something infinate.

[roly]

And just what miracles would these be?
Im glad u asked that quesetion. I have witnessed many miracles. If u are interested (or if anyone is) i can send you some writing of mine describing it. Also there is the miracle of me becomming a christian at all, i was in a pretty bad way B.C!
Roly.xxx

[J_Lazarus]

I know what agnosticism is...mirriam webster can tell me that.
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic&x=0&y=0
And it is most definately -far- from atheism. There is a big difference between thinking something is unknowable and -knowing and believing- that something does not exist, with certainty.

I simply say that I'm agnostic for the general idea...my beliefs are very strange and comletely individualistic. I think everyones spiritual experience should be an individual experience though. One of my big problems with religion is that it puts limits on people, when spirituality is something that is supposedly limitless and boundless...something infinate. (1) Until recently, many dictionaries still defined an atheist as "an immoral person". Dictionaries have no clue what they're talking about when it comes to this issue - and that should be expected considering the misconceptions dominant within laymen philosophy of religion circles today, and the historical application of the term itself.

(2) The misconception you suffer from is not in regards to your definition of agnosticism, it's your definition of atheism. This is the seventh or eighth time I'm discussing this.

(A) Agnosticism: [etymology] a (without) gnosis (knowledge)

To be without knowledge about the existence or non-existence of God.

(B) Atheism: [etymology] a (without) theism (belief in God)

To lack belief in the existence of a god or gods.

(C) Modern Usage of the term "Atheism":

Is used as defined in (B) in works such as Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, The Case Against Christianity, The Handbook of Atheistic Apologetics, Atheism: The Case Against God, Unjustified Belief: A Critical Examination of Theistic Fundamentalism.

On websites: PositiveAtheism.com, Infidelguy.com, InternetInfidels.org, StrongAtheism.com, and many others.

--------

The problem is that in laymen circles, atheism has been a word to describe the rejection of the existence of a god or gods. Such a definition ignores the etymology of the term and the modern usage by philosophy of religion scholars today. In truth, there are two sub-branches of atheism:

Positive (or Strong) Atheism - THIS is the position where an individual rejects the existence of a god or gods.

Basic (Negative, or Weak) Atheism - a lack of belief in a god or gods.

So when you say that you're an agnostic (i.e. you don't know whether or not a god exists), that has no bearing on whether you have an active BELIEF about whether God exists. If you do not have an active belief in God's existence, you are a Weak Atheist (or, as Reginald Finley calls himself, an Agnostic Atheist). If you believe in god regardless of whether or not you feel you know or even can know God exists, you are an agnostic theist.

In conclusion: AGNOSTICISM IS NOT A THIRD ALTERNATIVE TO THEISM OR ATHEISM. YOU ARE EITHER AN AGNOSTIC THEIST OR AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope this is the last time I have to talk about this. Do me a favor and spread the word.

- Laz

[Spasmolytic]

according to your definitions of this topic I'm an Agnostic Theist. Because I do believe in spiritual things, and "god".

one of the problems throughout the history of religion & philosophy is that the definitions mean different things to different people.

[POPthree13]

<---- for sure a theist agnostic.

[_CT]

<- strong atheist for sure.

[Razorofoccam]

The problem is that in laymen circles, atheism has been a word to describe the rejection of the existence of a god or gods. Such a definition ignores the etymology of the term and the modern usage by philosophy of religion scholars today. In truth, there are two sub-branches of atheism:

Positive (or Strong) Atheism - THIS is the position where an individual rejects the existence of a god or gods.

Basic (Negative, or Weak) Atheism - a lack of belief in a god or gods.

So when you say that you're an agnostic (i.e. you don't know whether or not a god exists), that has no bearing on whether you have an active BELIEF about whether God exists. If you do not have an active belief in God's existence, you are a Weak Atheist (or, as Reginald Finley calls himself, an Agnostic Atheist). If you believe in god regardless of whether or not you feel you know or even can know God exists, you are an agnostic theist.

In conclusion: AGNOSTICISM IS NOT A THIRD ALTERNATIVE TO THEISM OR ATHEISM. YOU ARE EITHER AN AGNOSTIC THEIST OR AN AGNOSTIC ATHEIST. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope this is the last time I have to talk about this. Do me a favor and spread the word.

- Laz
Lazarus

False..

Weak atheists as you call them have a 'lack of belief'
If occam asks a weak athiest
"do you believe in any god?"
No
"why"
I have nothing to base belief on.
"So a god may exist but as you have nothing to base such a belief on.
Then you do not have it?.. [belief]
For no human can know more than a small
part of what exists"
Yes.
" So if a god appeard before you tomorrow...you would call that a basis
for belief?"
Yes.
"So a god may or may not exist?"
Yes..

Agnosticism

Occam


PS
How generous of you to talk of this once morehttp://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif
'spread the word'???
what word...?
That there are only atheists and theists.
Those 'of' a god and those who reject a god.???

But my friend...occam is an agnostic...
He does not accept or regect the existance of a god..

Your logic is no such thing.

Your premise that humans can KNOW of what exists in reality and what does not..is false.

[Disarm]

one of the problems throughout the history of religion & philosophy is that the definitions mean different things to different people.
It's like science. Look something up in a dictionary and you get one version, simplified. Ask a professor who specialises in that specific field, you get nearly all you could ever want to know. Ask a layman and you get either "what?" or a stubborn belief that their knowledge (usually simpler than the dictionary's) is nothing but the truth. The main problem with the world is that the beliefs of the majority of society are effectively the truth (because all of society acts as if it is, so even if it isn't it might as well be). The crux of this problem is that the majority of society often seeks to learn just enough to function- hearing one definition of a word is generally accepted to be THE definition of a word, even if it came from a crackwhore. Dictionaries often define things in terms of how the majority of society uses a word, so often its better to take a lil time and look at the history of the word to find its true meaning. That's what I think, anyway.

[Razorofoccam]

It's like science. Look something up in a dictionary and you get one version, simplified. Ask a professor who specialises in that specific field, you get nearly all you could ever want to know. Ask a layman and you get either "what?" or a stubborn belief that their knowledge (usually simpler than the dictionary's) is nothing but the truth. The main problem with the world is that the beliefs of the majority of society are effectively the truth (because all of society acts as if it is, so even if it isn't it might as well be). The crux of this problem is that the majority of society often seeks to learn just enough to function- hearing one definition of a word is generally accepted to be THE definition of a word, even if it came from a crackwhore. Dictionaries often define things in terms of how the majority of society uses a word, so often its better to take a lil time and look at the history of the word to find its true meaning. That's what I think, anyway. Disarm

Thank you...
'The crux of this problem is that the majority of society often seeks to learn just enough to function'

Agree

Occam

[J_Lazarus]

Lazarus

False..

Weak atheists as you call them have a 'lack of belief'
If occam asks a weak athiest
"do you believe in any god?"
No
"why"
I have nothing to base belief on.
"So a god may exist but as you have nothing to base such a belief on.
Then you do not have it?..
For no human can know more than a small
part of what exists"
Yes.
" So if a god appeard before you tomorrow...you would call that a basis
for belief?"
Yes.
"So a god may or may not exist?"
Yes..

Agnosticism

Occam


PS
How generous of you to talk of this once morehttp://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif
'spread the word'???
what word...?
That there are only atheists and theists.
Those 'of' a god and those who reject a god.???

But my friend...occam is an agnostic...
He does not accept or regect the existance of a god..

Your logic is no such thing.

Your premise that humans can KNOW of what exists in reality and what does not..is false. I'm afraid I don't understand your first objection, Occam. Weak Atheists do not accept or reject the existence of a god - so you're an Agnostic Atheist. Strong-Atheists reject the existence of a god. Theists accept the existence of a god. And Agnostic Theists believe in the existence of God despite the lack of evidence.

In regards to "spreading the word" - I mean to spread the word that agnosticism is not a third position in itself. Agnosticism may be a sub-branch of both atheism (when lacking belief) or theism (believing in spite of lack of any knowledge).

You hold to your Agnostic Atheism because it is your position that humans cannot "know" anything. Other people disagree. Theists think we can know enough about reality to conclude that there is a god that exists. Strong-Atheists think we can know enough about reality to conclude that a god does not exist.

What makes me think you didn't read through my post very thoroughly was this:

That there are only atheists and theists.
Those 'of' a god and those who reject a god.???

But my friend...occam is an agnostic... When I've already said this:

(B) Atheism: [etymology] a (without) theism (belief in God)

To lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. So you'd be wrong to say that atheism is the rejection of the existence of a god or gods. That's [b]Strong-Atheism, which is a position that builds off of basic atheism.

Here:

http://greves.comdotnet.com/graph2.jpg

I drew this awhile back for people who were having a misunderstanding about how everything works.

An implicit atheist is a person who lacks belief in god because they've never heard about the idea of a god before. An explicit atheist is an atheist who has heard of god, assesses the idea of it, and retains his or her lack of belief.

From there, you should be able to follow well enough.

[Razorofoccam]

Lazarus

In your lexicon of concepts
Agnosticism is a sub branch of athiesm or theism

In occams ...agnosticism is a belief that a god or gods may be possible.
We just dont know enough yet to say.

You want to BLACK/WHITE human belief ...
When nearly all of it is grey.

LOGICALLY occam is both an athiest and a theist.
The qualifier being existant verification of a god...
There is some existant indicative verification
[none of it from religion]

That position is called being an agnostic
If someone asks occam
"is there a god" reply //dont know//
"is there no god" reply //dont know//

He does not STATE EVER that there IS or is IS NOT a god....
Thus he cannot be an athiest of a theist
He is
The third position.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

I too have trouble with the propensity we sometimes have to categorize, label, and define spiritual beliefs. I call myself a believer.
In what?
Spirit.
What is that.
Not a clue. It is below the surface, clear as day to me, totally non existant to others. I like to think both views are valid. If I had not had a veritable bounty of hard to explain experiences throughout my life, I am certain that my rational and critical analysis skills would lead me to doubt in the existence of said Spirit.
I cannot say anyone is wrong in their beliefs, excepting my unacceptance of thoughts, words, and actions that harm others.
It is a very complex subject, and that is why I feel questioning or judging anothers chosen path is beyond my area of knowledge.
I feel that I cannot know anothers reality, so I have no hope of judging what or why they believe.
In the case of criminals, I allow an exception, and would not allow someone to harm another in my presence. Again, this is subject to many contextual circumstances. For instance, if I saw someone about to kill a known serial killer, I admit I likely would not intervene. Someday, I hope that I can say I would. It is not something i am proud of, but just the truth of my feelings now.

[Razorofoccam]

[QUOTE=Razorofoccam]Lazarus

In your lexicon of concepts
Agnosticism is a sub branch of athiesm or theism

In occams ...agnosticism is a belief that a god or gods may be possible.
We just dont know enough yet to say.

You want to BLACK/WHITE human belief ...
When nearly all of it is grey.

LOGICALLY occam is both an athiest and a theist.
The qualifier being existant verification of a god...
There is some existant indicative verification
[none of it from religion]

That position is called being an agnostic
If someone asks occam
"is there a god" reply //dont know//
"is there no god" reply //dont know//

He does not STATE EVER that there IS or is IS NOT a god....
Thus he cannot be an athiest of a theist
He is
The third position.

Thus occam is [quote you] "and explicit athiest who has heard of god,
assesses the idea,, and retains his lack of belief..."
Yet he also retains his lack of belief that there is NO god.
A neutral position..no?
[What occam has heard of god from humans is totally irrelevant.
The 'hearing about god' from other people has no connection as those people may all believe anything without logical process.
None..propose a god without 'self contradictions']

The only evidence acceptable in the issue of god is existant
phenomena..

Occam sees some existent phenomena that indicate the existance of
a 'higher direction' [there CAN be no negative evidence]
Thus a god is quite possible.
And he proposes that his 'bar' to what is likely is FAR higher than most who are theists or atheists.

agnostic...without knowledge.
The third position

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

I guess I could be considered an atheist, since although I am a believer, I am virtually clueless as to the nature, purpose, description, definition, or directive of what I call Spirit. It may not even be a single, separate thing, and I tend to feel that it is not. That we are all a part, and all creation is Spirit.

"What else is nature, except God?" Seneca
I do not even try to comprehend It's nature, since it seems an impractical goal and of little pragmatic usefulness.

[Free as a bird]

I think its all well and good to say religion has caused wars, but Its not true in any case. Its people who have caused them , wheather religion be their excuse or not

[BlackGuardXIII]

I think its all well and good to say religion has caused wars, but Its not true in any case. Its people who have caused them , wheather religion be their excuse or not
I agree. More likely culprits are lust for power, control, greed, ego, and competitiveness. Religion is a handy tool in shrewd hands.

[J_Lazarus]

Lazarus

In your lexicon of concepts
Agnosticism is a sub branch of athiesm or theism

In occams ...agnosticism is a belief that a god or gods may be possible.
We just dont know enough yet to say.

You want to BLACK/WHITE human belief ...
When nearly all of it is grey.

LOGICALLY occam is both an athiest and a theist.
The qualifier being existant verification of a god...
There is some existant indicative verification
[none of it from religion]

That position is called being an agnostic
If someone asks occam
"is there a god" reply //dont know//
"is there no god" reply //dont know//

He does not STATE EVER that there IS or is IS NOT a god....
Thus he cannot be an athiest of a theist
He is
The third position.

Occam I would suggest that you re-read over my last two posts that you disagreed with. You'll see that, again, you're using the same objection that I keep addressing.

Atheism, properly defined, does not say that it is true that god does not exist. That is Strong Atheism. Atheism merely deals with a LACK OF BELIEF about the existence of God, which is not the same as rejecting its existence. Atheists (i.e. Agnostic atheists, Weak atheists) say: "God might exist, but I have no reason to believe that he does". Strong Atheists say: "God doesn't exist."

So when you say:

He does not STATE EVER that there IS or is IS NOT a god....
Thus he cannot be an athiest of a theist
He is
The third position. You're using the definition of atheism that I've already shown to be incorrect. Atheism does not say that God does not exist. Atheism simply acknowledges a lack of belief in God.

Atheism: a ("without") theism ("belief in god")

Atheism is to be without belief in God. It is not a term strictly meant for the position that people take who reject God's existence all together.

Please try reading through my posts more thoroughly, Occam (or try reading through my posts at all, for that matter, as I keep making this single point over and over and you keep coming back with the same objection that I keep addressing).

And no - you're not both an atheist and a theist, because a theist is a person who believes in God. Do you have an active belief in God? You've explicitly said you don't in other threads. So you are not a theist.

- Laz

[Disarm]

I think this is a bit of a technicality. Laz, I'm sorry if I get this wrong, but I have a bit of a problem with your chart- Athiesm is a lack of theism, theism being a belief in a g-d (so if I were to jump to conclusions, I would say an athiest has a lack of belief in a g-d), agnosticism is not knowing, essentially, so it sounds a bit like you're lumping people who are unsure in with athiests because they're not theists. To me, lumping agnostics in with thiests is just as valid..

I could say that
Weak Atheists do not accept the existence of a g-d.
Strong athiests do not believe in the existence of a g-d or g-ds.

Weak Theists do not reject the existence of a g-d.
Strong theists believe in the existence of a g-d or g-ds.

Weak athiesm and weak theism being somewhat the same, but when you put it in its strict boundaries like that, to me it even sounds like agnostics should be classed as theists more than athiests!

To say that a weak athiest does not reject the existence of a g-d, to me, does not lie in the concept of athiesm, it's a bit of conjecture.. the definitions of both athiesm and theism being something definite- lack of belief, or belief.. just because someone is unsure about their belief doesn't mean they lack belief any more than they have belief, and if they do, I would class them as agnostic-athiest, or agnostic-theist respectively.

I may have something wrong there but just because the definition of athiesm is 'one without theism', to me, doesn't justify calling agnostics athiests. It's like those fun forms you fill out and they always have like "yes" "no" and "don't know", or like a scale, rather than a black and white solution.

[J_Lazarus]

I think this is a bit of a technicality. Laz, I'm sorry if I get this wrong, but I have a bit of a problem with your chart- Athiesm is a lack of theism, theism being a belief in a g-d (so if I were to jump to conclusions, I would say an athiest has a lack of belief in a g-d), agnosticism is not knowing, essentially, so it sounds a bit like you're lumping people who are unsure in with athiests because they're not theists. To me, lumping agnostics in with thiests is just as valid..

I could say that
Weak Atheists do not accept the existence of a g-d.
Strong athiests do not believe in the existence of a g-d or g-ds.

Weak Theists do not reject the existence of a g-d.
Strong theists believe in the existence of a g-d or g-ds.

Weak athiesm and weak theism being somewhat the same, but when you put it in its strict boundaries like that, to me it even sounds like agnostics should be classed as theists more than athiests!

To say that a weak athiest does not reject the existence of a g-d, to me, does not lie in the concept of athiesm, it's a bit of conjecture.. the definitions of both athiesm and theism being something definite- lack of belief, or belief.. just because someone is unsure about their belief doesn't mean they lack belief any more than they have belief, and if they do, I would class them as agnostic-athiest, or agnostic-theist respectively.

I may have something wrong there but just because the definition of athiesm is 'one without theism', to me, doesn't justify calling agnostics athiests. It's like those fun forms you fill out and they always have like "yes" "no" and "don't know", or like a scale, rather than a black and white solution.
I never said agnosticism is only atheism - I said agnosticism can fit into either atheism or theism. There is such a thing as agnostic theism - I know quite a few agnostic theists myself. The difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist is that the agnostic theist has an active belief in God despite not having any knowledge, while the agnostic atheist has no active belief in god, usually due to the knowledge "problem".

Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are both expressions of an individual's "personal belief" - while theism and strong-atheism are expressions of an individual's position on what an objective fact is (i.e. the former thinks it's an objective fact that a God exists, the latter thinks it's an objective fact that a God doesn't).

- Laz

[BlackGuardXIII]

I never said agnosticism is only atheism - I said agnosticism can fit into either atheism or theism. There is such a thing as agnostic theism - I know quite a few agnostic theists myself. The difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist is that the agnostic theist has an active belief in God despite not having any knowledge, while the agnostic atheist has no active belief in god, usually due to the knowledge "problem".

Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are both expressions of an individual's "personal belief" - while theism and strong-atheism are expressions of an individual's position on what an objective fact is (i.e. the former thinks it's an objective fact that a God exists, the latter thinks it's an objective fact that a God doesn't).

- Laz
Well that settles it then, put me down for agnostic theist. I strongly believe there is something, but cannot go so far as to say it is God. I call it Spirit, and it is very chimerical, an elusive mirage like force that refuses to be laboratory certified.

[Free as a bird]

Man this really is a question with no definite anwsers, but Ill stick to what I said, you cant blame religion for wars, its what people have taken from religion, you have to remember religion is a man made thing

[Disarm]

I never said agnosticism is only atheism - I said agnosticism can fit into either atheism or theism. There is such a thing as agnostic theism - I know quite a few agnostic theists myself. The difference between an agnostic theist and an agnostic atheist is that the agnostic theist has an active belief in God despite not having any knowledge, while the agnostic atheist has no active belief in god, usually due to the knowledge "problem".

Agnostic atheism and agnostic theism are both expressions of an individual's "personal belief" - while theism and strong-atheism are expressions of an individual's position on what an objective fact is (i.e. the former thinks it's an objective fact that a God exists, the latter thinks it's an objective fact that a God doesn't).

- Laz
I knew I'd missed a bit, it sounded to me like you were saying if you were agnostic you were an athiest, and that didn't match up. thanks, sorry bout that :sunglasse

[Razorofoccam]

I would suggest that you re-read over my last two posts that you disagreed with. You'll see that, again, you're using the same objection that I keep addressing.

Atheism, properly defined, does not say that it is true that god does not exist. That is Strong Atheism. Atheism merely deals with a LACK OF BELIEF about the existence of God, which is not the same as rejecting its existence. Atheists (i.e. Agnostic atheists, Weak atheists) say: "God might exist, but I have no reason to believe that he does". Strong Atheists say: "God doesn't exist."

So when you say:

You're using the definition of atheism that I've already shown to be incorrect. Atheism does not say that God does not exist. Atheism simply acknowledges a lack of belief in God.

Atheism: a ("without") theism ("belief in god")

Atheism is to be without belief in God. It is not a term strictly meant for the position that people take who reject God's existence all together.

Please try reading through my posts more thoroughly, Occam (or try reading through my posts at all, for that matter, as I keep making this single point over and over and you keep coming back with the same objection that I keep addressing).

And no - you're not both an atheist and a theist, because a theist is a person who believes in God. Do you have an active belief in God? You've explicitly said you don't in other threads. So you are not a theist.

- Laz
Lazarus

An agnostic has WHAT to do with 'theism'?..
The stick in the gears.
Time to wield it.

Theism is not Gnosticism...
Thus your theory of dualistic theism DOES NOT APPLY..

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

no, they are no better, nor worse, no belief is the superior one, atheism included.
I agree with you and have had atheists exclaim with a derisive sneer that they KNOW there is not a god. It is no better than the believers who KNOW I will fry in hell for saying Jesus married and had kids, and I won't let him take my sins either.
Hypocrisy is an equal opportunity sin.

[mati]

It might help to understand the origin and nature of belief. belief is an idea that has a more lively feel to it, as distinguished from ideas of the imagination. Belief, properly speaking, is not an object of reason, which is only based on the comparrison of ideas, and cannot determine matters of fact. It (belief) needs something more to give it that extra liveliness. a present perception is one such something. Memory can sometimes also be so but it is usually weaker. Sometimes in the cases of the mentally disturbed, the imagination can be so strong as approach the liveliness of belief but normally it is easy to tell the difference. So the question is- why do people say they "believe" when no present perception or memory exists to enliven that idea? Without taking the matter too deep, there might be several explanations as to why. Religions have made it their business to furnish "believers" with all manner of things to substantiate their claims. Catholics excel in this. Spirituality is considered a noble pursuit and one who ponders these sublime questions is recognized by all as "holy". The more outlandish preists draw to them the more ferverant disciples. The mind is carried away with all this and approaches the liveliness which resembles belief. And as is normal in the mind, that which resembles is often taken for as identical. Not to mention the cases of those who want to "believe". Its' the old bait and switch- it is perfectly normal that we have such concerns as morality, justice, utility to ouselves and society and the natural world. But then the priests use this concern and put in their idea of "god" into the equation and demand that we worship it. They then whip us up into a frenzy and milk it for all that it is worth, for good or for evil. The good might be excused except for the delusion that goes along with it. The evil has been responsible for much of the worst that humans have created.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Some questions have no clearly definable answer. In those cases, one can either refuse to choose a favorite option, or state as your belief the answer that sounds best to you.
My beliefs, ironically enough, are the result of years of reasoned contemplation. They are based partly on my study and research, and my conclusions regarding what I have read.