What I don't understand..

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.

 

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.

 

...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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

lol - fair enough.

- 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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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!

 

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

 

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.

 

that's a bit cynical of ya

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

(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