I don't understand why non-religious and atheist seem to be treated as the same thing. People ask how atheists get their morality, and what is the purpose of life for an atheist, like there couldn't possibly be an answer to either. What about all the religions without any gods?

I'm not religious in any way, and if someone asks me what my religion is I'd rather say that than 'atheist'. I don't have faith that there's a God, but I don't have faith that there isn't. Dividing people as theists and atheists forces people to make a faith statement about it, and I don't want to. If you say you're an atheist, people can say 'but how do you know there isn't a god?'

I could come up with anything and insist that it's true, and that everyone in the world must be a believer or a non-believer, and doing that seems to put some responsibility on the non-believers to prove me wrong (not in any logical way I know, but that's how it works with God)

I just don't like being forced to play the game and call myself an atheist, when my religious view is really 'none'

I agree with you. Believing God doesn't exist is still believing something.

Just tell people you're an agnostic. :)

Faith is belief without support by any proof. There is more proof that there is no God than that there is.

Faith is belief without support by any proof. There is more proof that there is no God than that there is.

No there isn't. There is absolutely zero evidence either for or against the existence of some kind of god.

Faith is belief without support by any proof. There is more proof that there is no God than that there is.

No that is stupidity not belief. I do agree there are people out there who believe in God simply because they are told to believe in God. However, the majority of people who believe in a higher deity do so because they do have some sort of evidence, regardless of how compelling it may be to someone else.

regardless of how compelling it may be to someone else.

Err, that's pretty much a requirement of evidence. You can't go into court and say: "Hey I have evidence that I'm innocent, it's just invisible to everyone else, only I can see it... well then it's not really evidence, or at least not any that is useful.

We don't really care what you've convinced yourself with, we care what you can show.

No there isn't. There is absolutely zero evidence either for or against the existence of some kind of god.

Ridiculous. The onus is on the believer. I can't POSSIBLY give evidence against an invisible being that can't be experienced by any of the 5 senses. This is to say, it is non-falsifiable. It's like saying: show me proof that my invisible friend doesn't exist.

Ridiculous. The onus is on the believer. I can't POSSIBLY give evidence against an invisible being that can't be experienced by any of the 5 senses. This is to say, it is non-falsifiable. It's like saying: show me proof that my invisible friend doesn't exist.

If you cannot possibly give any evidence that there is not a God, and if there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God, then the amount of evidence for there being a God and for there not being a God is equivalent, that is to say, both positions have no evidence. So you have essentially called Galbador’s position ridiculous and then presented reasons that support it.

If you cannot possibly give any evidence that there is not a God, and if there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God, then the amount of evidence for there being a God and for there not being a God is equivalent, that is to say, both positions have no evidence. So you have essentially called Galbador’s position ridiculous and then presented reasons that support it.

Zero evidence for or against a god's existance does not imply that the odds of a god's existance are 50/50.

It is not possible to provide evidence that something (god, flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapot, etc.) does not exist. You cannot disprove a negative assertion.

On the other hand, the assertion that such a being does in fact exist, is a positive assertion. One rightly would expect that there should exist positive evidence of such a being.

The existance of most things (if not all things) can be verified through either direct or indirect observation. Due to the lack of any evidence to support the assertion that such a being exists, the logical assumption would be that he/she/it does not exist.

Absense of any evidence does not disprove god's existance, but it certainly lowers the odds far below 50%.

We don't really care what you've convinced yourself with, we care what you can show.

But, that is exactly my point. Creationists often point out the complexity of flagella as proof that there is a creator. This is evidence of complexity it just depends on how much you're willing to convince yourself.

If you cannot possibly give any evidence that there is not a God, and if there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of a God, then the amount of evidence for there being a God and for there not being a God is equivalent, that is to say, both positions have no evidence. So you have essentially called Galbador’s position ridiculous and then presented reasons that support it.

No, you are misconstruing my point. My "ridiculous" statement is referring to the idea that a believer would even go so far as to EXPECT positive evidence for the non-existence of something! Again, I can't POSSIBLY give positive evidence for something non-falsifiable. It is up to to the believer, and solely upon his shoulders, to give positive evidence. All I can possibly do is provide negative evidence, ie the lack of positive evidence from the believer's side.

This is to say, the non-believer's "evidence" (argument) is basically pointing out the believer's lack of evidence. This is the same way we would attack one who believed in Russell's teapot. We would cite his lack of evidence. I don't see why god gets a free pass on this line of reasoning. Sure we can't PROVE the non-existence of the teapot, but this doesn't change the ridiculousness and inaness of the claim that the believer makes. It just seems to turn the believer into a radical skeptic (positive skeptic).

I don't have faith that there's a God, but I don't have faith that there isn't.

This has helped me explain my belief, I appreciate this.

I just don't like being forced to play the game and call myself an atheist, when my religious view is really 'none'

So basically, you're just indifferent.

That is still a form of Atheism. Atheism is a very vast term.

For some reason, a lot of people seem to associate atheism with a stern disbelief in god. As though they're all adamant believers of there being no god. This is a false notion.

Atheists typically have a very open mind. They are open minded skeptics. A lot of people seem to have a hard time grasping this concept. I guess it does appear to be a bit contradictory if you know nothing at all about each term. But upon closer inspection, you will see that the two actually go hand in hand.

Faith is belief without support by any proof. There is more proof that there is no God than that there is.

Really? I was under the impression that both sides had exactly zero evidence to support them.

Where's the proof of non-existence? I'm especially curious to see this, because you're talking about proving a negative.

First thing is that every single person on the planet is atheist.

Second:
Where's the proof of non-existence? I'm especially curious to see this, because you're talking about proving a negative.

Exactly. Can't prove a negative.

So basically, you're just indifferent.

That is still a form of Atheism. Atheism is a very vast term.

For some reason, a lot of people seem to associate atheism with a stern disbelief in god. As though they're all adamant believers of there being no god. This is a false notion.

Atheists typically have a very open mind. They are open minded skeptics. A lot of people seem to have a hard time grasping this concept. I guess it does appear to be a bit contradictory if you know nothing at all about each term. But upon closer inspection, you will see that the two actually go hand in hand.
QFT. Exactly what I came in to post.

Really? I was under the impression that both sides had exactly zero evidence to support them.

Where's the proof of non-existence? I'm especially curious to see this, because you're talking about proving a negative.

The existence of evil? A morally perfect God wouldn't have allowed such genocides as the holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Ukraine genocide, etc. to occur, would he?

The existence of evil? A morally perfect God wouldn't have allowed such genocides as the holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Ukraine genocide, etc. to occur, would he?

Then again, morally perfect in our eye's as beings that want to survive. THEN indeed mindless slaughter would be percieved as morally incorrect. But perhaps perfect morallity has nothing to do with what we have come to percieve as morally perfect or as you state it morally perfect.

The Carthaginians per example were noble wariors, they had a democracy and public health services and they had a form of Social Security for the sick and elderly. Morally perfect you would say.

On the other hand they sacrificed young children and babies to Baal Hammon by throwing them into the fire. Monks would listen for their screams to determine if the Diety was content.

Now you would think, this is wrong! Our Christian God would not approve.

Indeed the Christian God says (if he could speak): Thou shalt not sacrifice humans to me. Or something like that. Thing is, Christians believe that God takes what he wants as part of his great plan. In this correlation it means that the Genocide is God's choice, he wanted it to happen as part of his great plan. Then this God is no much worse or better then Baal Hammon.

Its our morallity that determines how we like to see our God(s) not the other way around. Collectivelly we have more influence over what our God is then the other way around. Most of us just don't realise this.

Now you would think, this is wrong! Our Christian God would not approve.

Indeed the Christian God says (if he could speak): Thou shalt not sacrifice humans to me. Or something like that.

I'm pretty sure that both Jesus and Abraham would call you a liar.

The existence of evil? A morally perfect God wouldn't have allowed such genocides as the holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Ukraine genocide, etc. to occur, would he?

The existence of evil is a byproduct of free will. That's man's choice, his creation, not God's. God didn't invent slavery (unless we're talking about religious slavery), he didn't invent genocide or any of that. For him to stop them and anything else he considers "wrong" would be to strip us of any pretensions we have to free will.

As such, the existence of evil and atrocities doesn't disprove god's existence.

However, it does force you to wonder exactly what kind of Creator endows his creations with the capacity for so much evil. Maybe that's a byproduct of imagination. Or that so-called tree of knowledge.

But, that is exactly my point. Creationists often point out the complexity of flagella as proof that there is a creator. This is evidence of complexity it just depends on how much you're willing to convince yourself.

Yes, and I'm saying that's not really "evidence". Evidence isn't "what you've convinced yourself of". If that were so, there would be evidence of anything and everything!

The existence of evil is a byproduct of free will. That's man's choice, his creation, not God's. God didn't invent slavery (unless we're talking about religious slavery), he didn't invent genocide or any of that. For him to stop them and anything else he considers "wrong" would be to strip us of any pretensions we have to free will.
He didn't invent genocide? Funny how he orders people to do it in the Bible before anyone else considers it. :p It's like saying "He set up all the dominoes and tipped over the first one, but he was NOT the one who tipped over the last one!"

Not to mention that he knows exactly what we'll do, but creates us so that we'll do it anyway. He could easily have created us so we don't do evil but still have free will, just like we do do evil and have free will now.

Not to mention that stopping us from doing evil doesn't eliminate our free will at all. I can't teleport - does that mean I don't have free will? Or perhaps he could have made it so that doing evil would kill us - I have the free will to jump off a cliff, but I won't survive. Etc. There are plenty of solutions.

The problem I personally see with that is ...

If God is the oneness of all, an "infinite singularity" and that half of this "allness" could be classified as "Good" and half as "Evil", then if you were to subtract all the evil out of this balance you would be left with only good ... but thats not God, is it? It is very limited.

Also,

Not to mention that stopping us from doing evil doesn't eliminate our free will at all. I can't teleport - does that mean I don't have free will? Or perhaps he could have made it so that doing evil would kill us - I have the free will to jump off a cliff, but I won't survive. Etc. There are plenty of solutions.

If freewill gives us a multitude of possible 'paths' in which our life can turn down at any moment, then you can imagine if you were to draw out a picture representing this you could start by drawing your birth as a point which we will imagine the circumstances of are always set.

From that point on in this representation of all your possible "life paths" as we could call them, there are always several directions your life could take, based on your freewill and the freewill of others. Every moment you move forward along one branch while several other possible branches from the last moment are left behind.

If we were to draw every single possibility, you can imagine how complex this drawing would become. Some branches near the edges would end sooner then others, representing early death. In the middle of this drawing, would be your longest, happiest, "best" possible life you could live which could not be imaginably better (as well as your longest, "worst" possible life, which could not be imaginably worse).

If it were possible for us to know reality is really like this, an infinitude of possibilities, a oneness of allness, then the reason bad things happen is because if the possibility of bad things being able to happen didn't exist at all, then reality would not equal that "infinite singularity".

Really? I was under the impression that both sides had exactly zero evidence to support them.

Where's the proof of non-existence? I'm especially curious to see this, because you're talking about proving a negative.



Again, I can't POSSIBLY give positive evidence for something non-falsifiable. It is up to to the believer, and solely upon his shoulders, to give positive evidence. All I can possibly do is provide negative evidence, ie the lack of positive evidence from the believer's side.

This is to say, the non-believer's "evidence" (argument) is basically pointing out the believer's lack of evidence. This is the same way we would attack one who believed in Russell's teapot. We would cite his lack of evidence. I don't see why god gets a free pass on this line of reasoning. Sure we can't PROVE the non-existence of the teapot, but this doesn't change the ridiculousness and inaness of the claim that the believer makes. It just seems to turn the believer into a radical skeptic (positive skeptic).

Repeat

The existence of evil? A morally perfect God wouldn't have allowed such genocides as the holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Ukraine genocide, etc. to occur, would he?
Why in the All would He do that?
What you consider a "morally perfect God" is not what I consider to be God which is Perfect.
If there was no evil in the Universe and every piece of the Oneness started out in state of Perfect Union with God, we would not have worked for it, and our appreciation would diminish causing us to be like spoiled rich kids complaining that our expensive new car is blue instead of red.
Evil blinds every last one of us, that is part of the human condition.
Having the essence of God within us, this condition can be over come, and our being can be wrought into Perfection through hard work, labor, and dieing to self.

If there was no evil in the Universe and every piece of the Oneness started out in state of Perfect Union with God, we would not have worked for it, and our appreciation would diminish causing us to be like spoiled rich kids complaining that our expensive new car is blue instead of red.

In fact, it is my belief that indeed we did begin in this state of Perfect Union with God, and our understanding has diminished over the aeons as we flow further away from source and pollute our clear stream of consciousness with mud and trash because of our ignorance towards what we really are.
This brings me to my next point.
Those of use whom are fortunate enough to be born into economically or spiritually favorable families have been given a wonderful opportunity to find the essence of what they really are. But in this age of material fanaticism, this wonderful opportunity is thrown away.
So much waisted potential, it brings a tear to my eye.

If there was no evil in the Universe and every piece of the Oneness started out in state of Perfect Union with God, we would not have worked for it, and our appreciation would diminish causing us to be like spoiled rich kids complaining that our expensive new car is blue instead of red.

Except of course if he was omnipotent and could make it so there was no evil, he could also make it so our "appreciation wouldn't diminish".

There is really no objection you can make that omnipotence cannot overcome.

Maybe He tried that already?

By "tried that" you of course mean "succeeded in doing so" since the being in question is omnipotent.

That would seem to be the case.

Your probably going to ask something like, "Then why is it not like that now."
And my answer is:
He wanted to try something different.

And my answer is:
He wanted to try something different.

So then my point still stands? Great.

If he was omnipotent and could make it so there was no evil, he could also make it so our "appreciation wouldn't diminish", thus this doesn't serve as a refutation to harry_hardcore_hoedown's point.

Repeat

Having only heard of the Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Unicorn variants, I decided to go look up Russell's Teapot, thinking you might actually have something new to add to the argument. Wiki'ed:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Nothing in that synopsis suggests that it is logically correct to shift all burden of proof to the religious. Burden of proof is on the claimant, the one who alleges that something is true.

The believer alleges that there is a God. Since they have nothing but faith to back this, the claim cannot be proven. The claim has no substance.

No attack is required other than a simple statement of "The claim has zero merit". Any other argument is giving the claim more credibility than it is due.

The atheist alleges that there is no God. As a claimant, they have the burden of proof. As the negative cannot be proven, the claim has no substance.

Argument for or against the existence of God is futile in any scientific or reasoned sense of the word. Just because they're wrong, that doesn't make YOU right. "God" and his believers do NOT get a free pass. Neither do you, nor anyone else that tries to claim something without the ability to back it up with proof. Passing off ignorance as fact rather than simple faith is the hallmark of the blindly religious, and any self-professed "atheist" who falls victim to the same mentality should be embarrassed, no matter how much "sense" they think they're making.

Except of course if he was omnipotent and could make it so there was no evil, he could also make it so our "appreciation wouldn't diminish".

There is really no objection you can make that omnipotence cannot overcome.

Omnipotence doesn't overcome self-imposed constraints. If the hypothetical divinity decides that he doesn't want to mess with free will, then that means he can't mess with our appreciation, since that's a decision (be it concious or unconcious) on our parts, and interferes directly with our will.

If he was omnipotent and could make it so there was no evil, he could also make it so our "appreciation wouldn't diminish", thus this doesn't serve as a refutation to harry_hardcore_hoedown's point.
Freewill Rust, Freewill.
We get board of unity with God after awhile and spend all our time flying around and having astral sex. (given to us without effort)
Since we have freewill we're still in service to Him, but we aren't chained down and beaten with a slave stick, which is a metaphor I made up to describe no freewill. (maybe he tried that and wanted to give freewill a shot)
Using our physical vessels in this third density level of pain and impermanence, we eventually ascend to these higher plains. Our souls experience and learn and begin to appreciate the Whole process.
That is the purpose of evil and freewill.
We are not chained down and beaten with a slave stick. We have choices, we can learn to work with the process and ascend or we can fight it and make this river of consciousness move further away from source (naked union with Godhead).

spend all our time flying around and having astral sex.
How do I do this? Sounds fun.

We are not chained down and beaten with a slave stick.

True. Instead of being chained down, we're -expected- to choose the slave stick "freely" and if we do not, be cast into eternal damnation and suffering as a consequence.

Kind of like being told to "Convert or die" at gunpoint. Except with the gun, at least its over after they pull the trigger.

You can call it free will if you want, and it might even be true since they ultimately have the choice, but it's still a filthy way of conducting business.

How do I do this? Sounds fun.
One cannot tell another how to astrally project.
It's a personal process that takes much time, practice, and effort.
Simply put:
Mediation, visualization, and learning to extend your consciousness past your physical walls and into higher frequencies of activity.
I've only done it a few times, I wasn't trying. I think I hit some sort of energy bump or something, I don't really know.

True. Instead of being chained down, we're -expected- to choose the slave stick "freely" and if we do not, be cast into eternal damnation and suffering as a consequence.

Kinda, instead of rebelling against the whole process, its better to just roll with it. If you fight whats been given to you and say, "No I do not accept."
You can start to divide away from the process and bring others along with you, kinda like a cancer. But this cancer can still change back and begin working with the organism again, so it's not eternal. But it is harmful to all those involved (the individual cells and the entire organism)

Kinda, instead of rebelling against the whole process, its better to just roll with it. If you fight whats been given to you and say, "No I do not accept."


It's a bit hard to "rebel" against something when you don't know it exists in the first place. The commend I made about the slave stick was entertaining your assertion that said God does indeed exist. If such a God does exist, I'd consider an existence like that to be a cancer of itself, and in my best interests to separate myself from before it infects me.

But! Since I have no reason to believe that the God-cancer exists, I have nothing to worry about. No need to waste any effort rebelling.

Freewill Rust, Freewill.

Which he can preserve if he's omnipotent. Again:

There is really no objection you can make that omnipotence cannot overcome.

Omnipotence doesn't overcome self-imposed constraints. If the hypothetical divinity decides that he doesn't want to mess with free will, then that means he can't mess with our appreciation, since that's a decision (be it concious or unconcious) on our parts, and interferes directly with our will.

Who said otherwise? I said "could", not "must".

He "could" "mess with free will", because he has the power to do so, by definition. He might choose not to, of course. So? That doesn't refute the point. In fact, I would argue that strengthens it:

A father could have a self-imposed constraint of not giving his son proper medical care.... how utterly appalling of him!

Which he can preserve if he's omnipotent. Again:

There is really no objection you can make that omnipotence cannot overcome.
Just because he is all powerful does not mean He must do it the way you think He should.

If such a God does exist, I'd consider an existence like that to be a cancer of itself, and in my best interests to separate myself from before it infects me.

How do you figure God is a cancer?
How can you separate from what you really are in essence?

Just because he is all powerful does not mean He must do it the way you think He should.

I'll repeat the reply I gave Iehovah:

Who said otherwise? I said "could", not "must".

He "could" "mess with free will", because he has the power to do so, by definition. He might choose not to, of course. So? That doesn't refute the point. In fact, I would argue that strengthens it:

A father could have a self-imposed constraint of not giving his son proper medical care.... how utterly appalling of him!

Please follow the discussion:

The argument was that a morally perfect/good God would not allow evil to happen (i.e. that letting evil happen would contradict him being morally good/perfect). That he could be deliberately deciding to allow evil by preserving free will, does not magically mean the argument is refuted. In fact, it means the argument is quite present. It is precisely because he, according to you, has deliberately decided to allow evil - bey deliberately preserving free will - that the problem arises!

Why is evil not part of perfection?
Is what you deem moral perfection true perfection?

Why is evil not part of perfection?


You tell me!

"Evil blinds every last one of us, that is part of the human condition." - Vanhalla.

If we're perfect, then why is being like "spoiled rich kids complaining that our expensive new car is blue instead of red" less desirable than not being like that (as you implied in your post)?

You're arguing against yourself at this point...

How do you figure God is a cancer?

Hmmm. I should clarify this. The God portrayed in the Bible is a cancer. As is the religion that spawned from it. Since I don't have any interest in said god other than debate and discussion, the former statement is hypothetical while the latter is (IMO) a statement of truth about the Christianity to date.

I am completely unconcerned about the afterlife, so God in that sense has absolutely nothing to offer me. Nothing positive, anyway. On the other hand, if he's real, he's gone and set down these rules, authorized his followers to conduct themselves like monsters and conducts himself like a sacrificial blood god of old, no matter how much you pretty up the crucixion. He only cares about you being a good person as long as you're beating yourself with the slavestick, otherwise you're condemned to ETERNAL SUFFERING (honestly, it blows my mind that you dismiss this as some kind of minor consequence). Yeah, I classify that as cancerous by nature.


How can you separate from what you really are in essence?[/QUOTE]

You say that's the essence of what I really am. That's nothing but your opinion. Not a fact, not anything with any shred of evidence or credibility. It has no value to me, and claiming that I'm separating myself from it when I don't acknowledge it in the first place is really silly. I don't define myself by your beliefs.

Hmmm. I should clarify this. The God portrayed in the Bible is a cancer. As is the religion that spawned from it. Since I don't have any interest in said god other than debate and discussion, the former statement is hypothetical while the latter is (IMO) a statement of truth about the Christianity to date.

Oh, well I wasn't talking about Christianity, I'm talking about the quintessential energy that unifies all, a consciousness matrix is how I understand it. How this can be viewed of a cancer, I have no clue. How the religions that spawned from it are considered cancerous, that I can understand. As I said before, humans are blinded by evil and fail to understand Oneness. Their vengeance and greed for power and control bring them to go against the implications that quintessence entails.

I am completely unconcerned about the afterlife, so God in that sense has absolutely nothing to offer me. Nothing positive, anyway. On the other hand, if he's real, he's gone and set down these rules.
Its like a giant system, and any competent system has rules, consciousness is part of the universe, rules apply to it as well.

authorized his followers to conduct themselves like monsters and conducts himself like a sacrificial blood god of old, no matter how much you pretty up the crucixion.
If you think these people understand God, you're sorely mistaken. Things like the inquisition are abominations performed by beings who are hungry for power and control. Things like manifest destiny and racial inferiority, much like what America is doing, are the result of capitalism, materialism, and ignorance. It is part of the evolution of our species, we experience, we learn, and eventually we won't just be saying, "We are all One." We will actually understand it, and mean it through direct experience.

He only cares about you being a good person as long as you're beating yourself with the slavestick, otherwise you're condemned to ETERNAL SUFFERING (honestly, it blows my mind that you dismiss this as some kind of minor consequence). Yeah, I classify that as cancerous by nature.If we were being beaten with a slave stick, things like the inquisition and holocaust would never have happened. You make it sound like it is a bad thing to make progress towards advancement of the universal organism, and we should be able to reach enlightenment by sitting around fondling our balls. You don't get "condemned to ETERNAL SUFFERING" if you choose to slow down and hold back progress. Bad stuff will happen to you because you attract it to yourself though the deeds you commit. You must remember, it's a giant system. You get back what you put in. Also if we were chained down and beaten with a slave stick we wouldn't be able to choose between becoming a doctor or a chemist, we would be forced to become an engineer. It is our choice as to which area we would like to bring progress or hold back progress.


You say that's the essence of what I really am. That's nothing but your opinion. Not a fact, not anything with any shred of evidence or credibility.
Oneness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Theorem)has been proven.
http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Vaisheshika&as_oq=physics&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
Get with times buddy.
Don't fight the universe, just roll with it man.

Oh, well I wasn't talking about Christianity, I'm talking about the quintessential energy that unifies all, a consciousness matrix is how I understand it. How this can be viewed of a cancer, I have no clue.

It's pretty obvious we're on two different tangents here.

If you think these people understand God, you're sorely mistaken.

Yet you offer no insight into what God, Oneness, or any of the rules set down for them are. You simply preach and prach about how horrible everything else is, without giving back anything meaningful to suggest why your point of view is better.

If we were being beaten with a slave stick, things like the inquisition and holocaust would never have happened. You make it sound like it is a bad thing to make progress towards advancement of the universal organism, and we should be able to reach enlightenment by sitting around fondling our balls.

If it's about following a some kind of standard of behaviour, I can follow that reasoning. If this is just some alternative form of worship (i.e. slavestick) then it has nothing to offer.

Oneness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Theorem)has been proven.
http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Vaisheshika&as_oq=physics&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
Get with times buddy.
Don't fight the universe, just roll with it man.

I was under the impression you were referring to God worship. I have no idea what this oneness or vaishankenism is or why it should merit any interest to me. Perhaps you should elaborate. And explain how the hell Bell's Theorem relates.

[quote=Vanhalla;10018904]Oneness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Theorem)has been proven./quote]

Wikipedia - that's reliable.

Oneness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_Theorem)has been proven.


Wow. You have no fucking idea what you just linked to, do you? Pray tell what the hell Bell's theorem has to do with "oneness"?


Wikipedia - that's reliable.


It's actually pretty reliable, it just has jack shit to do with "oneness".

I'm not religious in any way, and if someone asks me what my religion is I'd rather say that than 'atheist'. I don't have faith that there's a God, but I don't have faith that there isn't. Dividing people as theists and atheists forces people to make a faith statement about it, and I don't want to. If you say you're an atheist, people can say 'but how do you know there isn't a god?'


I agree. I used to consider myself an atheist, but from this day forward I am non-religious.

It works.

I agree. I used to consider myself an atheist, but from this day forward I am non-religious.

It works.

No, it actually does not work.

If you say you're an atheist, and then some jackass asks you how you know there isn't a god, then you tell them to fuck off.

Burden of proof lies on the one with ridiculous claims.

Read this:

So basically, you're just indifferent.

That is still a form of Atheism. Atheism is a very vast term.

For some reason, a lot of people seem to associate atheism with a stern disbelief in god. As though they're all adamant believers of there being no god. This is a false notion.

Atheists typically have a very open mind. They are open minded skeptics. A lot of people seem to have a hard time grasping this concept. I guess it does appear to be a bit contradictory if you know nothing at all about each term. But upon closer inspection, you will see that the two actually go hand in hand.

Wow. You have no fucking idea what you just linked to, do you? Pray tell what the hell Bell's theorem has to do with "oneness"?


Twins brothers Bill and Bob, obeying the rules of quantum mechanics rather than the strictures of our everyday world have two hats. One is blue the other is green. Which hat they will choose, no one knows. The coworkers at Bills work place bet on which hat he will be wearing, they have a 50/50 chance of getting it right. But that can be changed to 100% if someone waits outside of Bobs workplace and sees he is wearing a green hat. The coworker calls in and places a bet saying Bill will be wearing a blue hat. But if Bills blue hat is removed and replaced with a green hat, then Bob's hat changes to a blue hat even though Bill is nowhere near him.

Altering the polarization of one paired photon changes the polarization of its twin. Since no signal can travel faster than 186,281 miles per second. Experiments testing Bell's Theorem have conclusively demonstrated that apparent faster-than-light connections exist in quantum reality.
Reality is actually non-local.
Photons can change the color of their hats in an unmediated (nothing material links the two photons), unmitigated (the connection between them cannot be shielded by any type of matter or energy), immediate (the strength of their linkage does not diminish with distance) manner.
Paired photons can alter their polarization simultaneously no matter whether they are two inches or two billion light years apart. However this doesn't mean some sort of FTL signal is traveling between them.

Physicists Davies and Gribbin write:
"Assuming that one rules out faster-than-light signaling, it [Bell's Theorem] implies that once two particles have interacted with one another they remain linked in some way, effectively parts of the same indivisible system. This property of 'nonlocality' has sweeping implications. We can think of the Universe as a vast network of interacting particles, and each linkage binds the participating particles into a single quantum system. In some sense the entire Universe can be regarded as a single quantum system."

As Nick Herbert says:
". . . nature undoubtebly uses seperluminal links to accomplish her inscrutable ends but these deep quantum connections are private lines currently inaccessible--and perhaps permanently inaccessible--to humans for communication purposes. Bell's theorem shows that the world is built in a most curious fashion: To achieve merely subluminal effects, things are hooked together by an invisible underlying network of superluminal connections."

Locality = separateness
Nonlocality = Oneness

This fact is "curious" only if one believes that nothing exists apart from physical reality, and that the sole purpose of the laws of nature is to produce material phenomena. If no attempt is made to discover the meaning that lies behind forms, then physicist will remain in the condition of a snail who tries to learn about a garden hose and sprinkler head without being able to fathom the notion of a "garden."

I appreciate the lesson, but it wasn't needed. I know what the Bell theorem is and how it relates to Quantum Mechanics, that's precisely why I know it has absolutely nothing to do with "oneness".

The non-locality is an aspect of quantum mechanics that is observed in entangled particles (i.e. quantum entanglement). You and I aren't entangled. Bill and Bob aren't entangled with Alice, and Jamie. So unless your definition of "oneness" is that "some particles that have been entangled experimentally exhibit non-locality", then you essentially refuted this whole quackery nonsense of "oneness" in the very first sentence of this lesson of yours: "Bill and Bob, obeying the rules of quantum mechanics rather than the strictures of our everyday world have two hats."

"Obeying the rules of quantum mechanics" (aka. "they are entangled") being the key part of that sentence.

Saying that this proves "oneness" is either extremely silly, if we take such a ridiculous definition of the word like the one suggested above, or just extremely dishonest.

Just because you were smoking some weed and read some cool shit on the internet, doesn't mean it's true and much less that you should be making such outrageous claims.

No, it actually does not work.

If you say you're an atheist, and then some jackass asks you how you know there isn't a god, then you tell them to fuck off.

Burden of proof lies on the one with ridiculous claims.



Gadzooks, it does work. What you said works too, though. I guess it's all in the point of view you take. I have gotten into the arguments in the past, once I said I was atheist and they are like 'how do you know there is no God?'.

I don't know, I just don't believe, and I ain't about to try and convince others that there isn't, because there may very well be. And that would land me in the same boat as those fanatics who go out and try to make others see it their way. What I do know is, I do not want religion in my life, because I believe religion is a bane to free thought, and if I did believe in God, I wouldn't need religion to practice my beliefs. I would be a believer but still be non-religious. My wife believes in God, but she isn't religious. She doesn't go to church, ever, doesn't have crosses in the house, rarely prays, but she believes. I don't believe, but I could if I ever experienced something 'divine'.

Nevermind, I don't really know what I'm trying to say...

I don't know, I just don't believe, and I ain't about to try and convince others that there isn't, because there may very well be. And that would land me in the same boat as those fanatics who go out and try to make others see it their way. What I do know is, I do not want religion in my life, because I believe religion is a bane to free thought, and if I did believe in God, I wouldn't need religion to practice my beliefs. I would be a believer but still be non-religious. My wife believes in God, but she isn't religious. She doesn't go to church, ever, doesn't have crosses in the house, rarely prays, but she believes. I don't believe, but I could if I ever experienced something 'divine'.

This is the very definition of an atheist. (Or what some might call 'weak atheism'.) Regardless, it's a form of atheism.

You can deny it all you want. But you're an atheist.

^^ Ok, fine, no denying it here. I've been saying that for years anyway.

^^ Ok, fine, no denying it here. I've been saying that for years anyway.

I'm not trying to 'label' you or anything. Just trying to clear up a common misconception when it comes to atheism. One that a lot of theists will use against us.

Atheism has come to be associated with "unshakable faith" in science. The OP is a classic example.

The more people understand this, the better.

I appreciate the lesson, but it wasn't needed. I know what the Bell theorem is and how it relates to Quantum Mechanics, that's precisely why I know it has absolutely nothing to do with "oneness".

The non-locality is an aspect of quantum mechanics that is observed in entangled particles (i.e. quantum entanglement). You and I aren't entangled. Bill and Bob aren't entangled with Alice, and Jamie. So unless your definition of "oneness" is that "some particles that have been entangled experimentally exhibit non-locality", then you essentially refuted this whole quackery nonsense of "oneness" in the very first sentence of this lesson of yours: "Bill and Bob, obeying the rules of quantum mechanics rather than the strictures of our everyday world have two hats."

"Obeying the rules of quantum mechanics" (aka. "they are entangled") being the key part of that sentence.

Saying that this proves "oneness" is either extremely silly, if we take such a ridiculous definition of the word like the one suggested above, or just extremely dishonest.

Just because you were smoking some weed and read some cool shit on the internet, doesn't mean it's true and much less that you should be making such outrageous claims.

Congratulations, you've missed the point.

Without an all pervading quintessential consciousness that somehow unmediated, unmitigatable, and immediately knows which hat Bill or Bob is wearing, these results would not be possible.
That is how I see it anyways, feel free to state your own theory.

I am done with this thread, I'm off to gain more knowledge, don't know when or if I'll be back.
Good Day Sir.

*grins in anticipation of unsavory remark*

I'm off to gain more knowledge
But not knowledge you don't like. :p

This is the very definition of an atheist. (Or what some might call 'weak atheism'.) Regardless, it's a form of atheism.

You can deny it all you want. But you're an atheist.

Depends entirely on how you define atheism. One definition is that it is "one who is without belief in gods", another is that an atheist is one who denies the existence of gods. There's clearly a difference between the two, one being a state of being and the other being an ideology. Given that the latter is no better then belief in gods, you can see why people might not want to associate with it.

Depends entirely on how you define atheism. One definition is that it is "one who is without belief in gods", another is that an atheist is one who denies the existence of gods. There's clearly a difference between the two, one being a state of being and the other being an ideology. Given that the latter is no better then belief in gods, you can see why people might not want to associate with it.

And it's because of negative associations dealt by theists that people started abandoning the term. And by encouraging the OP and other posters with similar beliefs that the term atheism means something completely different, you're scaring them off of using that term.

Atheism is the opposite of theism. That "A" prefix is what makes it so. The meaning doesn't change just because a few people decided to alter their personal definition of it.

Without an all pervading quintessential consciousness that somehow unmediated, unmitigatable, and immediately knows which hat Bill or Bob is wearing, these results would not be possible.

Except:

1. Bell's theorem, or indeed Quantum Mechanics as a whole, do not prove a "pervading quintessential consciousness".

2. You haven't proven that claim (i.e. that it would be impossible without that "consciousness") either!

You said, and I quote, "Oneness has been proven", and provided a link to an article explaining Bell's Theorem. That doesn't prove oneness. So no, I didn't "miss the point" (though thanks for that "unsavory sarcastic remark"); I'm quite on the point: You have not substantiated a single thing you said. That's the point. Bell's theorem doesn't prove "oneness". That's the point.


*grins in anticipation of unsavory remark*Unsavory remark, as opposed to an unsavory claim? Apparently in your worldview, it's fine to conduct yourself in an intellectually dishonest way, but making a an "unsavory remark"....

P.S. Please read Twisted_Ferret's remark; it's quite on target. It seems you never once question a single thing you read. If it supports your ridiculous theories, that's where your "research" stops. If anyone raises a valid point contradicting what you've said, you immediately take refuge in claiming that's "your theory" as if that magically excused your rampant intellectual dishonesty...

And it's because of negative associations dealt by theists that people started abandoning the term. And by encouraging the OP and other posters with similar beliefs that the term atheism means something completely different, you're scaring them off of using that term.

Atheism is the opposite of theism. That "A" prefix is what makes it so. The meaning doesn't change just because a few people decided to alter their personal definition of it.

From what I understand, you're completely mistaken. After doing a little bit of reading on the origins of the word, I find that the American usage is not derived from Latin (hence a- meaning "not"), but from the French word Atheisme, meaning one who denies the existence of God. In it's original American form, it was intended solely as a derogatory term against those that denied the existence of the Christian God. At that time, no "right-thinking" person would have called themselves an atheist.

Obviously, things changed for the better for atheists. And it seems that some of them want to redefine the word "atheism". That's fine and well, but you have to realize that when you speak as that kind of atheist, you do NOT speak for every atheist. There are plenty who will happily and proudly deny the existence of God and act exactly like the believers they hate. This is ignorance and if you can't see why someone wouldn't want to associate themselves with it, there's a problem and it's not with definitions, it's you.

When atheists become a positive force as a whole, maybe then you'll find people wanting to associate themselves with it. Meantime, screw that.

Call it the little a and the big a if you like. atheism and Atheism, state of being and ideology. But I'll tell you that as an agnostic, if you can't differentiate between the two, I'm not going to take you seriously. Especially if you're going to start up with that "weak atheism" garbage. Being an atheist in the sense of not having a god is like being pregnant. Either you are or you are not.

Call it the little a and the big a if you like. atheism and Atheism, state of being and ideology. But I'll tell you that as an agnostic, if you can't differentiate between the two, I'm not going to take you seriously. Especially if you're going to start up with that "weak atheism" garbage. Being an atheist in the sense of not having a god is like being pregnant. Either you are or you are not.

First of all, 'weak atheism' is a pretty common term. Calling it 'garbage' is like me calling agnosticism garbage. I mean, for one thing, you're talking about this "either you are or you aren't" stuff, yet you're agnostic? Maybe you should pick a side.

Anyway... No one can be absolutely sure that a god does not exist. I don't think there's such a thing as a person who will refuse to accept that there could be a god. Atheists acknowledge the possibility.

First of all, 'weak atheism' is a pretty common term.

Yeah, if you consider a term created barely over a decade ago in an internet forum to describe something only philosophers and apologists had recently and previously discussed "common". In fact, I don't see other agnostics flocking to the idea of calling themselves weak atheists... I only see Atheists trying to convince us that we are.

Calling it 'garbage' is like me calling agnosticism garbage.

I consider it garbage because I consider it an insult, not just to me, but to rational thought.

I mean, for one thing, you're talking about this "either you are or you aren't" stuff, yet you're agnostic? Maybe you should pick a side.

There is no right side to be on. Both are wrong. All discussion of whether there is or is not a god are hypothetical. Both the Atheist (note the big a) and the believer are equally ignorant, failing to shoulder the burden of proof for their claims, yet presenting their sides as fact.

That's like one person saying 2+2 is 5, another saying that 2+2 is 3, and expecting everyone to pick a side. Yeah, one's wrong... but so is the other.

Anyway... No one can be absolutely sure that a god does not exist. I don't think there's such a thing as a person who will refuse to accept that there could be a god. Atheists acknowledge the possibility.[/QUOTE]

Exactly the damn point. Not all atheists will accept that. They take the cowardly way out and claim that the burden of proof is solely on the believer and that because the believer cannot prove they are right, the atheist IS right.

That's ignorance, and a complete failure to acknowledge the possibility.

Exactly the damn point. Not all atheists will accept that. They take the cowardly way out and claim that the burden of proof is solely on the believer and that because the believer cannot prove they are right, the atheist IS right.

That's ignorance, and a complete failure to acknowledge the possibility.

So then this is all just a semantics thing...?

Apparently our beliefs are pretty much aligned, just not our terminology... Well I'll definitely look deeper into that. I just always thought that the proper term for what I believe is atheism.

Yeah, if you consider a term created barely over a decade ago in an internet forum to describe something only philosophers and apologists had recently and previously discussed "common". In fact, I don't see other agnostics flocking to the idea of calling themselves weak atheists... I only see Atheists trying to convince us that we are.


Sorry to step in, but that is just plain misleading.

The actual terms "weak atheism" might not have been used until about 15 years ago, but the concept of trying to divide atheism into two (or more) different positions has been going on for ages.

For example, the very French you say the English word "atheism" is based upon, had a meaning of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God" which automatically denotes two different position: outright denial that they exist, and disbelief that they exist.

Not to mention that if we go to the origins of the word "agnosticism", you'll see it's a position regarding whether we can or cannot know if a god exists, and not a position that precludes atheism or theism immediately. You can be an agnostic theist for example. Thus requiring a term for someone who does not believe in gods but does not claim that their existence is impossible.

So then this is all just a semantics thing...?

Under different circumstances it could be. In the literal sense, it is not - there's two different definitions at play, the ones I pointed out before. The ones that make atheism a state of being or an ideology. As a state of being - atheism means being without a god. In that sense, everyone's born atheist. By the other definition, an atheist is one who states that there is no God. A completely unprovable statement, and one I have a problem with.

Apparently our beliefs are pretty much aligned, just not our terminology... Well I'll definitely look deeper into that. I just always thought that the proper term for what I believe is atheism.

If you can make the world redefine atheism to simply a state of being, then you'll be right. Hell, technically you ARE right. The problem is created by the fact that there are two radically differing definitions used interchangeably.

As for agnosticism and "weak atheism", it's possible that I'm making more out of it than needs to be, but since the phrase doesn't make any sense except if used in conjunction with the ideological definition of atheism, it feels like an insult, since it directly associates me with the stupid definition of atheism rather than the quality one.

When people that claim there is no God stop calling themselves atheists, I'll happily label myself one too. After all - it's true. I am "without belief in Gods".

This is the very definition of an atheist. (Or what some might call 'weak atheism'.) Regardless, it's a form of atheism.

You can deny it all you want. But you're an atheist.

Jesus Christ! Now even the damned atheists are evangelising!

This has helped me explain my belief, I appreciate this.

It's called atheism.

Though the word's meaning seems to have been butchered by the ignorant. Conventional wisdom says it means "Believes there's no god." but the dictionary says "Disbelieves in the existence of god.". Disbelief is defined as not believing, which is what the word really means.

Just look at the construction.

It's "theism", the belief in god, with the prefix "a-", which means without. So "without belief in god". Different from "belief there's no god".

Sorry to step in, but that is just plain misleading.[quote]

If it was misleading, that wasn't intentional. I misunderstood something that was written, and mistakenly applied it to the originating language as well as the current one.

[quote]The actual terms "weak atheism" might not have been used until about 15 years ago, but the concept of trying to divide atheism into two (or more) different positions has been going on for ages.


I understand that, but I wouldn't say that philosophical discussion, where people use words that aren't inherently understood by laymen such as "negative atheism" and "positive atheism" and the derivative "weak atheism" created by a single internet sub-forum constitute "common usage". Opinion? I guess.

For example, the very French you say the English word "atheism" is based upon, had a meaning of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God" which automatically denotes two different position: outright denial that they exist, and disbelief that they exist.

In the French language, yes. For the purposes of this dicussion and the roots that we're talking about, I assume we're all Americans. I realize that Wikipedia isn't the best source, so feel free to correct it with a better one if this is wrong:

Karen Armstrong writes that "During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word 'atheist' was still reserved exclusively for polemic ... The term 'atheist' was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist."Atheism was first used to describe a self-avowed belief in late 18th-century Europe, specifically denoting disbelief in the monotheistic Abrahamic god. In the 20th century, globalization contributed to the expansion of the term to refer to disbelief in all deities, though it remains common in Western society to describe atheism as simply "disbelief in God". Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited.

That's one very specific definition, and it's the one I've been talking about.

Not to mention that if we go to the origins of the word "agnosticism", you'll see it's a position regarding whether we can or cannot know if a god exists, and not a position that precludes atheism or theism immediately. You can be an agnostic theist for example. Thus requiring a term for someone who does not believe in gods but does not claim that their existence is impossible.

That seems counter-productive and self-deception in a manner. I guess you could call a believer who acknowledges that we cannot know god exists an agnostic theist, but does that really make sense? To a believer, faith in god is SUPPOSED to be knowledge of god. If you don't know god/s, then you don't really have a belief in them/it, and aren't a theist, right?

It's called atheism.

Though the word's meaning seems to have been butchered by the ignorant. Conventional wisdom says it means "Believes there's no god." but the dictionary says "Disbelieves in the existence of god.". Disbelief is defined as not believing, which is what the word really means.


That's not all the dictionary says:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That gives atheism two different meanings. Or are you going to choose one and ignore the other, claiming it's "ignorant"?

It's "theism", the belief in god, with the prefix "a-", which means without. So "without belief in god". Different from "belief there's no god".

That would make sense if our usage of the word was derived from Latin rather than French.

I understand that, but I wouldn't say that philosophical discussion, where people use words that aren't inherently understood by laymen such as "negative atheism" and "positive atheism" and the derivative "weak atheism" created by a single internet sub-forum constitute "common usage". Opinion? I guess.

Except the words being used aren't the total issue at hand. The point is that the meaning of the word atheism has implied two different positions for ages, even since the Greek definition of the word. The early definition of atheism was "godless" or "without god". One can be without a god because one believes they cannot exist, or because one simply lacks a belief in them but does not claim they are impossible.

If you want to argue that "Weak atheism" is relatively new, go ahead. I won't deny that. However, the room for such terminology has been there pretty much since the origins of the word. There have always been various positions implied by the definition of atheism.


In the French language, yes. For the purposes of this dicussion and the roots that we're talking about, I assume we're all Americans. I realize that Wikipedia isn't the best source, so feel free to correct it with a better one if this is wrong:

1. Actually, not just in the French language. From your own source:

" The term atheist (from Fr. athée (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ath%C3%A9e)), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-10) predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-11)]"

They cite a French text that was translated into English, thus introducing the word "atheist" and its definition as "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God" into the English language.

2. What you quote is used to show the negative connotations the word atheism/atheist had, not to show how it was properly defined in dictionaries or literary works.


That seems counter-productive and self-deception in a manner. I guess you could call a believer who acknowledges that we cannot know god exists an agnostic theist, but does that really make sense? To a believer, faith in god is SUPPOSED to be knowledge of god. If you don't know god/s, then you don't really have a belief in them/it, and aren't a theist, right?

No. Agnosticism is the position that we cannot know, as a matter of fact, whether gods exist or not. Theism is belief that they do. Anything else is what you've decided to inject into the definitions.

The word "belief" and "knowledge", are two different things. You can have a belief without knowledge.

There is no self-deception in believing that a god exists while admitting that proving/knowing it is impossible. That's the definition of faith. For example, one could be a theist that decided to believe in a god because he was convinced by Pascal's Wager (however correct or incorrect it may be).


P.S. The fact that it entered the English language through French does not refute it's Greek origins. The French undoubtedly got it from the Greek, be it directly or indirectly (through Latin that got it from Greek). The prefix "a-" implied absence in Greek and Latin, as it does in English.

I just don't like being forced to play the game and call myself an atheist, when my religious view is really 'none'

Are you without theism?

If so, then you are an atheist.

Done.

The prefix "a-" implied absence in Greek and Latin, as it does in English.

A thousand times yes.

Not sure what you guys are arguing but this is a completely correct statement.

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
This would be fine but is wrong.

1. Atheism is "without theism"
2. As atheism is not a formal religion, it has no doctrine or set principals other than one doesn't believe in a god or deity.

This would be fine but is wrong.

1. Atheism is "without theism"
2. As atheism is not a formal religion, it has no doctrine or set principals other than one doesn't believe in a god or deity.

This thread sucks.

That's not all the dictionary says:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

That gives atheism two different meanings. Or are you going to choose one and ignore the other, claiming it's "ignorant"?

Yes. It's purely semantic anyway. I think we should get rid of these words for all their connotations and make some new ones.

You can't place the burden of fact on the person you are trying to pitch something to.

That is like a scientist asking his colleagues to prove his hypothesis as theory, even if his hypothesis is preposterous.

Even if there is a god, which I can not prove nor disprove, it would have no effect on my physical reality. From what humanity has observed the universe obeys the laws of physics 100% of the time, no exceptions.

Even if we do not know why something works, the phenomenas parameters are measurable and recurring.

We do not understand the chemical complexity of the human brain at this point in time. I can say nothing of fact but I can speculate on the clause that the human brain is just a jumble of chemical synapses, and hormone receptors. With enough time and success, with survival, any number of multicellular organisms could eventually be physically tested to have a high level of computing power at their disposal. This last part has already been proven with the THEORY of evolution.

Sorry for my rant, I am tired...

--Vargev--

This would be fine but is wrong.

The dictionary, most of them cited in fact, say YOU are wrong.

1. Atheism is "without theism"

Indeed, it is. That's ONE of the definitions. Many words have more than one, you know?

2. As atheism is not a formal religion, it has no doctrine or set principals other than one doesn't believe in a god or deity.

Completely irrelevant to anything. Something can be a belief without being a religion. I believe mass murders should die horribly. This is not a set of principles, but a single belief. I make no claim that atheism's a religion.

As for being a doctrine... it certainly is. What's the definition of a doctrine? There's a couple.

1. a body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group
2. a principle or body of principles that is taught or advocated [Latin doctrina teaching]

You can't tell me that atheism isn't a principl and that it isn't advocated. That's wrong, and definition #2 is what makes it a doctrine.

You can't tell me that atheism isn't a principl and that it isn't advocated. That's wrong, and definition #2 is what makes it a doctrine.
You can't tell me that agnosticism isn't a doctrine, and that it isn't advocated.

They're the same thing as you use agnosticism. Except as Rust pointed out agnosticism actually is a position on all knowledge and not about God specifically.

The atheist alleges that there is no God. As a claimant, they have the burden of proof. As the negative cannot be proven, the claim has no substance.

Argument for or against the existence of God is futile in any scientific or reasoned sense of the word. Just because they're wrong, that doesn't make YOU right. "God" and his believers do NOT get a free pass. Neither do you, nor anyone else that tries to claim something without the ability to back it up with proof. Passing off ignorance as fact rather than simple faith is the hallmark of the blindly religious, and any self-professed "atheist" who falls victim to the same mentality should be embarrassed, no matter how much "sense" they think they're making.

It seems that you assume that any atheist is stating that it is a fact or that he/she can PROVE the non-existence of something (what?). But as it is obvious, this can't be done with something non-verifiable (and wholly undefined/ambiguous). Rather, most are weak atheists. They do not tend to prove anything, only show negative evidence for their belief.

Also, some might say atheism is not a positive belief at all, but rather a disbelief. Therefore he/she has no claim to validate, and only rejects others' claims.

It seems that you assume that any atheist is stating that it is a fact or that he/she can PROVE the non-existence of something (what?).

No, I recognize that this kind of ignorance does not represent the true majority of atheists, aka the "strong atheists". I do however, notice that a large number of the so-called "weak atheists" claim they aren't required to provide any proof that there isn't a god, that it should be accepted as a fact, not because they can prove it but because beliver are wrong. Blatant ignorance.


But as it is obvious, this can't be done with something non-verifiable (and wholly undefined/ambiguous). Rather, most are weak atheists. They do not tend to prove anything, only show negative evidence for their belief.

That's the whole failing of atheism. Strong atheists are the very definition of ignorance, while weak atheists don't just not tend to prove anything, but CANNOT prove anything due to the fact that believers are every bit as wrong as "strong atheists".

The ONLY part of atheism that you can prove is the "without belief in gods" definition. And that doesn't MEAN anything. It has absolutely no bearing on the argument for or against god.



Also, some might say atheism is not a positive belief at all, but rather a disbelief. Therefore he/she has no claim to validate, and only rejects others' claims.

Except that this is clearly not true, as evidenced by "strong atheists". You cannot make a claim without proof. Making the claim puts the burden of proof on you, whether you call it a positive belief or not. Playing semantics games does not let you off the hook.

Iehovah, I think you used "strong atheists" and "weak atheists" differently/erronously, just now. For example, in the first paragraph.

Yeah, I'll assume he means strong atheists.

Strong atheists - "There is definitely no god." are just as retarded as monotheists - "There is definitely a god.", and polytheists from that matter.

The only valid position is that of "weak atheists", "I do not believe there is a god. I do not believe there is no god."

I'm not sure if I should call myself an atheist, though, because the dictionary definition has diverged from the philosophical one.

I think I'll just explain my position to anyone who asks. I'm not sure if I'm agnostic. You could say I'm agnostic as to whether I'm agnostic or not. Because I believe that the lack of a reason to believe in god means that I don't believe in a god, and at the same time I don't believe god to even be likely.

I'd go by definition 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

but is that what the proles understand the word to mean?

Iehovah, I think you used "strong atheists" and "weak atheists" differently/erronously, just now. For example, in the first paragraph.

Maybe, but since he is using the wikipedia definition of "weak atheist", I make the assumption that the same applies to the definition of "strong atheist". Since there is no agreed upon definition of the words, assuming is the best I can do.

According to you, what is the "proper" definition?

Maybe, but since he is using the wikipedia definition of "weak atheist", I make the assumption that the same applies to the definition of "strong atheist". Since there is no agreed upon definition of the words, assuming is the best I can do.

That's not the problem. The problem is this:

"No, I recognize that this kind of ignorance does not represent the true majority of atheists, aka the "strong atheists"."

Who said strong atheists are the majority? You were replying to him just having said that weak atheists are the majority in his opinion ("Rather, most [atheists] are weak atheists.").

Also, the next sentence you give:

"I do however, notice that a large number of the so-called "weak atheists" claim they aren't required to provide any proof that there isn't a god, that it should be accepted as a fact,"

Why would a weak atheist make that claim? Weak atheists, by definition, don't claim that there is no god. If they did, they would automatically be strong atheists.

It seemed, to me at least, that you were using them mistakenly.

I'm not sure if I should call myself an atheist, though, because the dictionary definition has diverged from the philosophical one.

I think I'll just explain my position to anyone who asks. I'm not sure if I'm agnostic. You could say I'm agnostic as to whether I'm agnostic or not. Because I believe that the lack of a reason to believe in god means that I don't believe in a god, and at the same time I don't believe god to even be likely.

I'd go by definition 1. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

but is that what the proles understand the word to mean?
This sums up my thoughts on the issue. What I mean when I say I'm an atheist appears to be different from the commonly accepted definition. It bothers me, because I think the philosophical definition of these words is much more clear, accurate, and useful; but on the other hand, I've always thought it was kind of pathetic when people have to resort to "yeah, but the dictionary is wrong!"... >_<

That's not the problem. The problem is this:

"No, I recognize that this kind of ignorance does not represent the true majority of atheists, aka the "strong atheists"."


Whoooooa, oops. That's the kind of typo that changes the meaning of the entire post. I did indeed write that incorrectly - it SHOULD have read "weak atheists". :(


Also, the next sentence you give:

"I do however, notice that a large number of the so-called "weak atheists" claim they aren't required to provide any proof that there isn't a god, that it should be accepted as a fact,"

Why would a weak atheist make that claim? Weak atheists, by definition, don't claim that there is no god. If they did, they would automatically be strong atheists.

This however, WAS intentional.

From what I understand, there is no third category of atheism to cover the middle ground between those that have the balls to say, no matter how ignorant it shows them to be, straight out that there is no goo, and rely on the cover of not being required to prove it. Since it doesn't properly fit "strong atheism" I picked the latter because
"weak atheism" is supposed to cover all categories of non-theism.

That's a problem I have with so-called weak atheism. As an agnostic, I'm a weak atheist... and so are spirit worshippers, Satan worshippers, idiots that consider the non-existence of god a fact, and every other fringe cult on the planet that worships something other than a god, including just about every other person that doesn't worship a god (remembering that ANYONE that doesn't worship a god is an atheist, by one definition)...

... well, no pun intended, it's way too goddamned broad. So broad that it's meaningless.

So, since strong atheism is blatant ignorance, and weak atheism is so open as to be meaningless, what value does it have to identify people in either category, unless you're trying to piss all over the cause?

If I were to EVER identify myself as an atheist, it would be as an agnostic atheist, not a weak atheist. And I just don't see the point in adding the label. Why bother?

From what I understand, there is no third category of atheism to cover the middle ground between those that have the balls to say, no matter how ignorant it shows them to be, straight out that there is no goo, and rely on the cover of not being required to prove it.

Weren't you defining "strong atheism" as it is in wikipedia?

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist".

Those who claim 'that there is no god' are accepting as true the proposition "gods do not exist". They are strong atheists, by definition.

Whether they are correct or incorrect in any subsequent arguments they make regarding the "burden of proof" they have or do not have, is another matter. They are atheists, specifically strong atheists as soon as they claim gods do not exist.

..and weak atheism is so open as to be meaningless, what value does it have to identify people in either category, unless you're trying to piss all over the cause?
How is agnosticism any less broad? It encompasses everyone who "doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study"...

All the people you mention... Spirit worshipers, Satan worshipers... all of them fall under "agnosticism" so long as they "doubt the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study". Just as they could technically fall under weak atheism if they lack a belief in gods.


And I just don't see the point in adding the label. Why bother?

Because agnosticism doesn't say anything regarding your position on the existence or non-existence of gods, or your lack of belief in them? You can be an agnostic theist...

It is no suprise that people stil debate wether god exists or not. The churches have had over 1800 years of unrivaled freedom to indoctrinate the people with their ideas. It has been written in our collective minds. It takes a strong individual to question it so I wouldn't call strong atheist's ignorant so easily.

I figure myself like this: I can't prove Gods exist nor can I prove they don't. Until someone can prove it to me or a God presents himself to me, I will choose my own path.

Weren't you defining "strong atheism" as it is in wikipedia?
[I]
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist".

Actually, I was defining it as this excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist."

It doesn't seem like an explicit affirmation to me when people expect it to be taken as fact based on one side being wrong.

I do realize that there is a second wikipedia article (I was using the primary one on the atheism page) that gives the definition you offered. Maybe they come down to being the same thing, different approaches under the same reasoning. However, it appears to me the difference THERE is actually in whether it's explicit or implicit atheism, not strong or weak. I'd thought they were words for the same thing, but apparently not.

Whether they are correct or incorrect in any subsequent arguments they make regarding the "burden of proof" they have or do not have, is another matter. They are atheists, specifically strong atheists as soon as they claim gods do not exist.

Fair enough. I'm perfectly willing to consider them every bit as ignorant as any other strong atheist, just with a different brand of stupidity.

How is agnosticism any less broad? It encompasses everyone who "doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study"...

Calling yourself agnostic offers insight into a discussion as to where you stand. Tell people you're agnostic in a discussion of Christian religion? They'll probably consider you a fence-sitter, but ultimately they'll know you haven't chosen a side. Tell someone you're agnostic on the issue of satan worship? Same deal as Christianity. Same with just about anything. It clarifies where you stand. It doesn't need "atheism" added to the label, because it's implicit. Why would I bother to call myself agnostic-atheist when it's irrelevant to anything I have to say? Redundant, even.

Point being that agnosticism may be broad, but atheism (defined solely as "without gods") is far broader to the point of uselessness. Tell someone you're a strong atheist? Okay, fairly straightforward. You deny the existence of god. Weak atheist? Okay, you could be just about anything that doesn't worship a god. What's the point of adding the label when it's "implicit" whatever you're talking about? Is it simply to give atheism credibility you think it is due, or what?

All the people you mention... Spirit worshipers, Satan worshipers... all of them fall under "agnosticism" so long as they "doubt the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study". Just as they could technically fall under weak atheism if they lack a belief in gods.

Because agnosticism doesn't say anything regarding your position on the existence or non-existence of gods, or your lack of belief in them? You can be an agnostic theist...

Yeah, it does. It clarifies exactly what your position is. And in most discussions, it's understand what it means to call yourself agnostic even if the details vary based on personal definitions.

It is no suprise that people stil debate wether god exists or not. The churches have had over 1800 years of unrivaled freedom to indoctrinate the people with their ideas. It has been written in our collective minds.

Agreed. It does take strength to question in PUBLIC and not ANONYMOUSLY the status quo. Those that do so get a bit of applause, even if their beliefs are ultimately ignorant.

It takes a strong individual to question it so I wouldn't call strong atheist's ignorant so easily.

Your mind is your own domain. Nobody can force you to believe anything without absolute brainwashing, and society doesn't do that (for religion) anymore. You have the ability to think for yourself, to decide for yourself that there is no God.

However, the fact is that from a purely objective standpoint strong atheism is every bit as ignorant as belief in gods. Neither can be proven.

Does that mean not following your own muse? Of course not.

Actually, I was defining it as this excerpt from Wikipedia:
"Strong atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist."

It doesn't seem like an explicit affirmation to me when people expect it to be taken as fact based on one side being wrong.

They are essentially the same definition; the differences between the one you offered and the one I offered are trivial. In the end, someone who claims that "god's do not exist" is both affirming that gods do not exist, and accepting that as a true proposition.

They are strong atheists. You were labeling them as weak atheists incorrectly.



Yeah, it does. It clarifies exactly what your position is. And in most discussions, it's understand what it means to call yourself agnostic even if the details vary based on personal definitions.

No, it clarifies just as much as weak atheism does. Weak atheism clarifies that my position is that I don't believe in gods just as agnosticism clarifies that I don't think we can have absolute knowledge in a certain subject.

But again, I can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic satan worshiper, an agnostic spirit worshiper, an agnostic cult member... All the examples you gave can fall under agnosticism just as much as weak atheism. So how does it clarify any more when all the examples you gave could be agnostic as well?

They are essentially the same definition; the differences between the one you offered and the one I offered are trivial. In the end, someone who claims that "god's do not exist" is both affirming that gods do not exist, and accepting that as a true proposition.

They are strong atheists. You were labeling them as weak atheists incorrectly.

The definition of "explicit" is this:
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.

As I said, it doesn't seem to me that refusing to say the words straight out constitutes explicit expression.... but since the understanding in dicussion is the same, I'm willing to accept your classification of these people as strong atheists. Just a different brand of ignorance.


No, it clarifies just as much as weak atheism does. Weak atheism clarifies that my position is that I don't believe in gods just as agnosticism clarifies that I don't think we can have absolute knowledge in a certain subject.

Consider contractions. They express the exact same idea, with a lesser number of letters. In a discussion about Christianity, someone who states that they are agnostic on the subject has just stated they cannot have absolute knowledge... not just about anything, it's specifically understood that they are talking about Christianity.

In other words, what you like to call "weak atheism" "agnostic atheism" or "agnostic theism", except far more explicit, because you know exactly what ideology is expressed by the word agnostic. Sure, there's room for development, but you can't tell me that is equally understood.

If you walk into that same discussion and say I'm a "weak atheist", you MUST add agnostic to it, or you could be just about ANYTHING.

But again, I can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic satan worshiper, an agnostic spirit worshiper, an agnostic cult member... All the examples you gave can fall under agnosticism just as much as weak atheism. So how does it clarify any more when all the examples you gave could be agnostic as well?

Sure, if you're going to be selectively agnostic. In which case it serves you well to express yourself that way. As someone that approaches all religious and metaphysical matters agnostically, it's a waste of my time to add a bunch of nonsense to it. If I need to clarify myself, the option's available.

Grammatical precision is fine if it's serving a particular usage, but if we're going to start writing one thousand page essays to say the exact same thing we can say in 300 words or less, something's wrong.

As I said, it doesn't seem to me that refusing to say the words straight out constitutes explicit expression

Who is refusing to say the words straight out? If they claim that there is no god, they've made that explicit.

Unless you've managed to read these people's mind and know for a fact what they believe without them expressing it, I don't see your point.

Either they've made the claim, or they haven't.


If you walk into that same discussion and say I'm a "weak atheist", you MUST add agnostic to it, or you could be just about ANYTHING.

The same applies to agnosticism! You come to a room and say "I'm an agnostic" and you must add "theist" or "atheist" or you could be just about ANYTHING! You could be an agnostic satan worshiper, an agnostic cult member, an agnostic spirit worshiper....

Sure, if you're going to be selectively agnostic.

Who's being "selectively agnostic"? Agnosticism tells us what your position regarding knowledge is. Specifically whether absolute knowledge is possible or not. That's it. It does not tell us whether you do or do not believe in gods, whether you do or do not believe in satan, whether you do or do not participate in cults... it doesn't say anything else!


As someone that approaches all religious and metaphysical matters agnostically, it's a waste of my time to add a bunch of nonsense to it. If I need to clarify myself, the option's available.

The point is, "agnostic" alone does not tell us what your position is on anything save for whether you think absolute knowledge on a subject (or all subjects if you say you approach all matters agnostically) is possible.. You can approach everything agnostically and still believe in dragons, in fairies, in Bog Foot, in god, in no god... in pretty much anything!

Who is refusing to say the words straight out? If they claim that there is no god, they've made that explicit.

Unless you've managed to read these people's mind and know for a fact what they believe without them expressing it, I don't see your point

The point is that I believe kinds of strong atheists, at least according to what you're telling me. Some of them may even use the same reasoning.

The first, the kind that insists there is no god and they don't have to prove it
The second, the kind that won't come out and say it, but insist that the first set of reasoning is correct.

The point is that I see a difference there. I told you I'm willing to accept your definition of these people as strong atheists. Accept that and move on instead of trying to push me into lock-step with your way of looking at things. There's different kinds of strong atheists as well as weak atheists? Fine.

Either they've made the claim, or they haven't.

That is exactly where I see a difference. One says it right out, the other won't say it, but that the first one's reasoning is right. Okay, that's one way of saying it without saying it. Implied assent?

The same applies to agnosticism! You come to a room and say "I'm an agnostic" and you must add "theist" or "atheist" or you could be just about ANYTHING! You could be an agnostic satan worshiper, an agnostic cult member, an agnostic spirit worshiper....

No, you're completely wrong and it blows my mind to see you making THIS mistake, given how you harp on preciseness. I wasn't talking about walking into just ANY room. I'm talking about joining a discussion about a specific subject. They question you as to your beliefs, you say you are agnostic. Agnostic means something to people, not only in common usage but in specifics. It means you are not committed to a certain side of the Christian god debate. Weak atheism, on the other hand, is ANY kind of of non-theism. You walk into that same conversation at the same questioning and tell them that you are a weak atheist, and assuming they even know what that means, it still doesn't have a real meaning, just that you don't worship any gods. Agnosticism is a hellovalot more specific, as they are clearly not talking about satanism and everything els. Like I said. Consider it a contraction if it bothers you not to have all the specifications.

Your reasoning fails here:
Agnosticism may be a type of weak atheism, but weak atheism is not a type of agnosticsm, and they're clearly not the exact same thing. It's like species compared to phyla compared to genus and so on. You're treating them as the same thing when they're not.

Who's being "selectively agnostic"? Agnosticism tells us what your position regarding knowledge is.

You misunderstand the intent of that comment. I'm saying that selective agnosticism serves a purpose, the purpose of clarification. In a discussion like the theoretical christian one, it's completely unnecessary as the meaning is implicit (agnostic theism) to most people present, unless they're looking for an argument.

Specifically whether absolute knowledge is possible or not. That's it. It does not tell us whether you do or do not believe in gods, whether you do or do not believe in satan, whether you do or do not participate in cults... it doesn't say anything else!

This is where you need to make up your mind. First you say that selective agnosticism is not possible, then you say it is. Here you say that agnosticism ONLY means whether absolute knowledge is possible or not. If THAT is true, then "weak atheism" is "agnosticism" under a different name, which it clearly is not. if it IS possible to be selective, to call yourself an agnostic satan worshipper but not an agnostic spirit worshipper at the same time, then that's another thing.

I subscribe to the latter idea, and it looks like that's the way you're leaning too. Agnosticism as a label has two different purposes. One to serve as a general definition, the other as a sub-level to differentiate. As a general agnostic, that's covers knowledge as a whole, and ultimately if someone asks me to clarify, I only have to say that I am an agnostic in the broadest sense of the word, since agnosticism IMO is or should be considered exclusive of theism. From what I've heard at least in the theologies that have a hell, it doesn't matter if you call yourself an agnostic theist, if you really are one, you're going to hell.

So, that said, why should I bother to differentiate myself from theists or atheists when I don't consider myself one of either?

The point is, "agnostic" alone does not tell us what your position is on anything save for whether you think absolute knowledge on a subject (or all subjects if you say you approach all matters agnostically) is possible.. You can approach everything agnostically and still believe in dragons, in fairies, in Bog Foot, in god, in no god... in pretty much anything!

Exactly, that would indeed be the purest form of agnosticism, deciding that the truth value of the metaphysical and religious are inherently unknowable. While I can see where selective agnosticism could be useful in clarifying certain things, I think that those who profess to be selectively agnostic are involved in a certain level of either self-deceit or intellectual dishonesty.

Worshipping something you have no reason to expect to be true has got to be one or the other.

The first, the kind that insists there is no god and they don't have to prove it
The second, the kind that won't come out and say it, but insist that the first set of reasoning is correct.

I would say that if they don't claim there is no god, then they aren't strong atheists, by definition. They are weak atheists that might believe something stupid on top of their weak atheism.


I wasn't talking about walking into just ANY room. I'm talking about joining a discussion about a specific subject. They question you as to your beliefs, you say you are agnostic.

So your point is what? That agnosticism can function in other subjects besides the issue of god? Because if that's the point, I hardly see how that makes it a more specific term...

In a religious discussion, where obvious atheism is limited to, saying you're agnostic says exactly the same as saying you're atheist can be just as specific.

You use the example of a "Christian discussion".... well that's the very example I had in mind: You come to a room (where they are discussing Christianity) and say "I'm an agnostic". Great. You must add "theist", "atheist" or some other label, or you could be just about ANYTHING! You could be an agnostic Christian or an agnostic Satan Worshiper. That doesn't help anybody in that discussion pin point what your position is on anything else except your position on knowledge.


Agnosticism is a hellovalot more specific, as they are clearly not talking about satanism and everything els.

You keep saying that but that is absolutely not true. You can be an agnostic satanist.

Your reasoning fails here:
Agnosticism may be a type of weak atheism, but weak atheism is not a type of agnosticsm, and they're clearly not the exact same thing. It's like species compared to phyla compared to genus and so on. You're treating them as the same thing when they're not.

What? Who said they were the same? Who said that agnosticism was a type of weak atheism? I sure as hell didn't...

I'm not treating them as the same thing at all. I'm treating them as two different things that are just as specific. You said that weak atheism was not specific because you could be a weak atheist satan worshiper, a weak atheist spirit worshiper... etc. I'm saying you can be those things and also be an agnostic. So how is one more specific than the other?

In a discussion like the theoretical christian one, it's completely unnecessary as the meaning is implicit (agnostic theism) to most people present, unless they're looking for an argument.

They can assume so, but if you don't clarify they might be wrong. Again, you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

If I go to that "theoretical Christian discussion" and I say I'm a weak atheist, I'm being pretty specific. Right off the bat they know I lack a belief in their god. If you say you're agnostic, they don't know if you're a Christian or not. They might assume something, sure, but that information isn't provided by the term "agnostic" alone.



This is where you need to make up your mind. First you say that selective agnosticism is not possible, then you say it is. Here you say that agnosticism ONLY means whether absolute knowledge is possible or not. If THAT is true, then "weak atheism" is "agnosticism" under a different name, which it clearly is not. if it IS possible to be selective, to call yourself an agnostic satan worshipper but not an agnostic spirit worshipper at the same time, then that's another thing.

Huh? Where did I say it was impossible?

You said: " Sure, if you're going to be selectively agnostic."

and I asked you: Who's being "selectively agnostic"?

I asked that because I don't have to be to believe what I said, or rather the hypothetical people I'm talking about don't have to be. They can be completely agnostic.

Agnosticism tells us your position on knowledge. That's it. You can specify and say "I'm agnostic in regards to ghosts" or something else. That's fine. I'm not saying that's impossible. The point being made is that "agnostic" does not mean you don't believe in ghosts, for example. It means that you believe absolute knowledge (in ghosts if you specify) is impossible. Whether you believe in ghosts or not is another story. You can say that you're "agnostic in regards to ghosts" and then believe in them. You can also say "you're agnostic in regards to ghosts" and not believe in them.

That's the main point. That in no way means that "weak atheism is agnosticism under a different name".


From what I've heard at least in the theologies that have a hell, it doesn't matter if you call yourself an agnostic theist, if you really are one, you're going to hell.

Well then, no offense, but you have a very limited knowledge of theologies. Very limited considering that one of the most popular forms of religion in the world, Protestant Christianity, believes that salvation is based on belief in Christ as our savior. That's it. You can be an agnostic that believes Jesus Christ is our Savior.

e.g. Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved."


So, that said, why should I bother to differentiate myself from theists or atheists when I don't consider myself one of either?

You don't have to if you don't want to. I'm not here to discuss what should be your preferences, that would be silly. Your preferences as yours and yours alone.

I would say that if you lack a belief in gods, then you're an atheist and thus it would further specify your position on this matter. If you don't think you lack a belief in gods, then fine don't call yourself an atheist.



Worshipping something you have no reason to expect to be true has got to be one or the other.

Who says you have no reason to expect that to be true? "Having a reason to expect something to be true" isn't excluded in agnosticism... having absolute knowledge is. If you find something that you believe points to "belief in gods" being more likely, then you can certainly have that and still be an agnostic.

Lock this fucking thread.

I would say that if they don't claim there is no god, then they aren't strong atheists, by definition. They are weak atheists that might believe something stupid on top of their weak atheism.

Fine by me.

In a religious discussion, where obvious atheism is limited to, saying you're agnostic says exactly the same as saying you're atheist can be just as specific.

If I go into a religious discussion about Christianity and tell them that I am agnostic on the specific subject of Christianity, it is clearly understood that I have no stand on the subject. Since agnosticism refers to knowledge, I just told the group that I believe no knowledge exists or can be taken on the subject of Christianity. That's pretty specific. Yes, it IS possible to be more specific. Stringing words together is one way to achieve that effect.

You use the example of a "Christian discussion".... well that's the very example I had in mind: You come to a room (where they are discussing Christianity) and say "I'm an agnostic". Great. You must add "theist", "atheist" or some other label, or you could be just about ANYTHING!
You could be an agnostic Christian or an agnostic Satan Worshiper.

Except that you can't. By stating that I am agnostic to the subject of Christianity (assuming I was stupid enough to not come out and say straight out that I'm pure agnostic), I've just covered all bases relevant to the discussion. Because a> if you're talking about satan worship rather than satanism, that's treating satan as a divinity, b> agnostic theism is fundamentally contradictory in context of Christianity, and c> agnostic atheism is too vague, since it's considered a subcategory of atheism. It offers nothing to clarify my position.


That doesn't help anybody in that discussion pin point what your position is on anything else except your position on knowledge.

True, but that wasn't the point unless you are looking to give an autobiography of yourself. Tell me - how many people on the totse religious forums regularly identify themselves in a manner more specific than "atheist", "agnostic" or "Christian"? Sure, in threads like this, we get into the nitty gritty, but regular arguments?

You keep saying that but that is absolutely not true. You can be an agnostic satanist.

Sub-categories are inherently more specific than general categories. It's like I said about scientific classifications... you can be a tree, an aborealis fauna (yeah, I don't know science), or a white butt-rotte. The final classification is far more specific than the others. You can call it a white butt-rotte aborealis fauna tree but that's a waste of time.

Weak atheist is more specific than atheist. Agnostic is more specific than weak atheist. Agnostic Satanist is more specific than that. How specific do you need to be in a Totse argument? I guess unless it's Rust you're talking to, not very.

That's not to say that agnostic can't be used in other ways, but for the purposes of identification? Yeah.

I'm not treating them as the same thing at all. I'm treating them as two different things that are just as specific.

You only have to look at the fields they encompass to see that's not correct. Agnosticism is a way of thinking that also functions as a label and a minor category of it's own. Weak atheism is nothing more than an ultra-general category that *can* include agnosticism, since supposedly you can be one and not the other, no matter how little sense it makes.

They can assume so, but if you don't clarify they might be wrong. Again, you can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

And that STILL isn't complete clarification, is it? If you tell them you're an agnostic atheist, you can still be a satan-worshipper, so by gosh, you better cover EVERY SINGLE base, right?

God forbid anyone be wrong. You can clarify yourself to death and people can still be wrong. What purpose does this serve other than in an interrogation?

Huh? Where did I say it was impossible?

I got the distinct impression that you considered weak atheism and agnosticism the same thing and that you were ignoring the previous argument about Christian discussion because of it. This is clarified, and a dead issue.

The point being made is that "agnostic" does not mean you don't believe in ghosts, for example. It means that you believe absolute knowledge (in ghosts if you specify) is impossible. Whether you believe in ghosts or not is another story. You can say that you're "agnostic in regards to ghosts" and then believe in them. You can also say "you're agnostic in regards to ghosts" and not believe in them.

That's also incredibly irrational, much like agnostic theism. Believing that something is inherently unknowable and then going and believing in it anyway it is ridiculous. I don't think I should need to label my own position by defining it against irrationality. If I tell someone that I am a complete agnostic, it makes things SO specific that they only have to ask a single other question to determine where I stand. "yes, but do you belive in anything specific"? "No."

A "yes" answer would be basis for an entirely different discussion, and for someone that irrational, it might actually be worthwhile to define themselves.

Well then, no offense, but you have a very limited knowledge of theologies.

Never claimed to have a broad knowledge of them, and that is WHY I wrote it the way I did. "at least in the theologies that have a hell"

Very limited considering that one of the most popular forms of religion in the world, Protestant Christianity, believes that salvation is based on belief in Christ as our savior. That's it. You can be an agnostic that believes Jesus Christ is our Savior.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but those very same religions have elevated JC to the status of divinity, an object of worship. A substitute God, but still god. And if you believe that's unknowable, then you haven't accepted him as your personal saviour/god and you ARE going to Hell.

e.g. Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved."

I would say that if you lack a belief in gods, then you're an atheist and thus it would further specify your position on this matter. If you don't think you lack a belief in gods, then fine don't call yourself an atheist.

See earlier point about labels.

Who says you have no reason to expect that to be true? "Having a reason to expect something to be true" isn't excluded in agnosticism... having absolute knowledge is. If you find something that you believe points to "belief in gods" being more likely, then you can certainly have that and still be an agnostic.

See point about irrationality. If you're going to pretend to be rational by calling yourself agnostic in acknowledging the truth of things being unknowable, then why be completely ridiculous and accept "faith" as alternative form of knowledge?

You seem to have this odd expectation that you must at all times define yourself as an atheist, while refusing to take that reasoning all the way. Why is that? You say that it's more specifc to have ALL the labels, but being completely honest with yourself, you know darn well that "agnostic atheist" doesn't not constitute a whole label anymore than "agnostic" or "weak atheist satan worshipper" does.

If you're not going to take that reasoning all the way, why take it at all?

1. I understand your point about Scientific classifications and how one can be more specific than the other. What I believe you haven't proven is how agnostic is more specific than weak atheist.

To use your own example of the Christian room, if you enter and say you are agnostic... do they know if you're a Christian? No. Do they know if you're a theist? No. They know your position on knowledge. That's it. If you enter as an atheist, they automatically know that you're not a Christian and not a theist either.


2. You initially said that weak atheism was meaningless because satan worshipers, spirit worshipers, etc. could fall under the category of "weak atheism". The same applies to agnosticism! So my question remains, how is agnosticism not equally "meaningless"?

You go on to say that it would be "irrational". How is it irrational to be an agnostic who believes in ghosts? Does it violate the definition of agnosticism? No. Does it violate a rule of inference (i.e. logic)? No.

So how is it irrational save for you finding it weird or strange?

[I]Belief is not the same as knowledge. You can be of the position that knowledge on a certain subject (or even all subjects) is impossible to achieve, yet still choose to believe something. For example, you can throw a dice and choose to believe in something that way. It may be strange, sure, but it's not impossible and it does not require you to say that "dice" offer some kind of knowledge, just that this is the way you've chosen to believe something while understanding that it doesn't constitute knowledge.

If you're an agnostic regarding everything, then how are you conversing with me? Have you not chosen to believe that I am a being who can converse through this language?


3. At no point in time have I said we must use X amount of labels or that we needed to be as specific as possible. I don't care if you or anyone else chooses to use one or a thousand labels. That's not important to me.

I'm questioning your claim that weak atheism is useless and that agnosticism is much more specific.

That's the whole failing of atheism. Strong atheists are the very definition of ignorance, while weak atheists don't just not tend to prove anything, but CANNOT prove anything due to the fact that believers are every bit as wrong as "strong atheists".



I'm not sure what your obsession with 'proof' is. Most things can't be proven, but are rather believed because of support. The thing is the weak atheist doesn't claim to know x, but rather states that he/she has support for x and this leads to his or hers belief in x. You seem to assume any claim needs proof. This may be true for knowledge, but not so for belief, it only needs support (a lack thereof would change it to faith).

I'm not sure what your obsession with 'proof' is. Most things can't be proven, but are rather believed because of support. The thing is the weak atheist doesn't claim to know x, but rather states that he/she has support for x and this leads to his or hers belief in x. You seem to assume any claim needs proof. This may be true for knowledge, but not so for belief, it only needs support (a lack thereof would change it to faith).

That requirement of proof is what brings about atheism in the first place. Theism has almost nothing rational to "support" it and nothing in the way of proof.

The same applies to strong atheism.

As far as "proof" goes, "weak atheists" don't need proof to exist. After all, it supposedly just means anyone without gods.

So, when it comes to "obsession", if you consider making a point of not associating myself with something I consider ignorance, then I suppose I'm guilty.

Fair enough, I started thinking along the same lines when some dude started whining about locking the thread.

1. I understand your point about Scientific classifications and how one can be more specific than the other. What I believe you haven't proven is how agnostic is more specific than weak atheist.

To use your own example of the Christian room, if you enter and say you are agnostic... do they know if you're a Christian? No.

I have to disagree here. Agnosticism is blatantly unChristian. Faith is considered a substitute for knowledge, and a properly defined agnostic (one who believes it is unknowable) cannot have faith. Lack of faith is damnation. I'm sure there's probably terribly convenient "Christian" religions for people to get around this pitfall, but I'd have to consider that a bigger joke than Christianity.

Do they know if you're a theist? No.

They don't need to. The conversation is about Christianity. Christianity while theistic, does not equal theism. Much the way agnosticism may be weakly atheistic, but does not equal weak atheism.

They know your position on knowledge. That's it. If you enter as an atheist, they automatically know that you're not a Christian and not a theist either.

Only, and I specify ONLY by common understanding, much like agnosticism do they know that. Remember that atheism has more than one definition, and if you do not clarify exactly what type of atheist you are, they don't know that you're not Christian. After all, you could be a weak atheist, right? So no, unless you don't specify, they really don't know anymore than they did if you'd told them you were agnostic.

2. You initially said that weak atheism was meaningless because satan worshipers, spirit worshipers, etc. could fall under the category of "weak atheism". The same applies to agnosticism! So my question remains, how is agnosticism not equally "meaningless"?

The reason is something I covered in this other blurb that you responded to. The sub-categories of one make sense while the others are completely irrational. If the metaphysical is unknowable, how is there any sense in believing in it?

Sure, there's the possibility of experiencing it, but....
If you have interacted with something, then its status has clearly changed from unknowable to knowable. You're no longer agnostic. It doesn't make any sense to believe in gods, spaghetti monsters, or ghosts when there's nothing rational to support their existence.

You go on to say that it would be "irrational". How is it irrational to be an agnostic who believes in ghosts? Does it violate the definition of agnosticism? No. Does it violate a rule of inference (i.e. logic)? No.

It violates the rules of common sense. It's possible to be one, but I'd consider an agnostic that seriously believes spirits exist and need to be worshipped with NO reason, no knowledge, to back it up... as stupid and ridiculous as a strong atheist. Do they exist? Feel free to point me to some, so that I can lose a little more faith in humanity.

So how is it irrational save for you finding it weird or strange?

It's not that it's weird or strange, it's that it's completely lacking in common sense and rationality.

[I]Belief is not the same as knowledge. You can be of the position that knowledge on a certain subject (or even all subjects) is impossible to achieve, yet still choose to believe something. For example, you can throw a dice and choose to believe in something that way. It may be strange, sure, but it's not impossible and it does not require you to say that "dice" offer some kind of knowledge, just that this is the way you've chosen to believe something while understanding that it doesn't constitute knowledge.

I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning doesn't even make sense to me. I didn't say that belief and knowledge were the same thing. I'm saying that they're intertwined.

If you're an agnostic regarding everything, then how are you conversing with me? Have you not chosen to believe that I am a being who can converse through this language?

Definition of agnostic is generally in regards to the metaphysical, and particularly the religious. If i were going to that extreme, I'd have to specify it. I'm sure there's a word for that too.

I'm questioning your claim that weak atheism is useless and that agnosticism is much more specific.

Fair enough. Weak atheism isn't completely useless. It serves as a label, albeit a broad one. Agnosticism serves as an adjective to describe an ideology, a label for a way of looking at things, not a broad category for everything else.

Looking at it this way. Telling someone that you're a weak atheist tells you they're not a strong atheist, but that they're without gods. Telling someone that you're agnostic tells them the way you look at things. That things, particularly the metaphysical/supernatural/religious, are unknowable. Yeah, you COULD believe in those things anyway, but it's nonsensical, and I believe it violates the definition of agnosticism for someone who believes they've interacted with what they believe in to call it agnosticism, because they've stepped beyond the point of it being unknowable.

I have to disagree here. Agnosticism is blatantly unChristian. Faith is considered a substitute for knowledge, and a properly defined agnostic (one who believes it is unknowable) cannot have faith. Lack of faith is damnation. I'm sure there's probably terribly convenient "Christian" religions for people to get around this pitfall, but I'd have to consider that a bigger joke than Christianity.

You can disagree, but you're wrong. Faith isn't a substitute for knowledge because it is belief in something without knowledge.

You can be agnostic and believe in things within topics you're agnostic about. It's as simple as that.


They don't need to. The conversation is about Christianity. Christianity while theistic, does not equal theism. Much the way agnosticism may be weakly atheistic, but does not equal weak atheism.

They do need to know it. If you're not a theist, you're not a Christian. They could know it, by default, if they ask you if you're a Christian though, but they still end up knowing that you're a theist in the end.

It's a Venn Diagram and Theism is one big circle and Christianity is a smaller circle within that big theism circle. If you're not a theist, you are not a Christian. If you are a theist, you're one step closer to being a Christian.

It's definitely added information given by saying "weak atheist". You give the added information that you're not a theist, thus you're not a Christian. That information is simply not given by agnosticism.



After all, you could be a weak atheist, right? So no, unless you don't specify, they really don't know anymore than they did if you'd told them you were agnostic.

Huh? Weak atheists cannot be Christian by definition. Christianity requires belief in a god, and weak atheists lack precisely that!


If the metaphysical is unknowable, how is there any sense in believing in it?

How does it not make sense believing it? Questions don't magically prove your point...

You haven't shown any reason, why it's illogical or irrational. Again: Does it violate the definition? No. Does it violate a rule of inference? No.


It violates the rules of common sense. It's possible to be one, but I'd consider an agnostic that seriously believes spirits exist and need to be worshipped with NO reason, no knowledge, to back it up... as stupid and ridiculous as a strong atheist. Do they exist? Feel free to point me to some, so that I can lose a little more faith in humanity.

You may consider them that, great, that still doesn't make them impossible! What you or I believe is silly, ridiculous, absurd, strange... whatever, doesn't matter here if it's possible! This isn't a debate of what's silly and what isn't, this is a discussion about what agnosticism encompasses and like it or not, it encompasses those people too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist

I like how they put it:

"Agnostic theism could be interpreted as an admission that it is not possible to justify one's belief in God or gods sufficiently for it to be considered known."


It's not that it's weird or strange, it's that it's completely lacking in common sense and rationality.

Which you've showed how exactly? By you believing it so? Until you show that they lack rationality, you have done nothing but show it's strange to you.


I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning doesn't even make sense to me. I didn't say that belief and knowledge were the same thing. I'm saying that they're intertwined.

That line of reasoning is there to show you how you can be an agnostic and still believe in things you're agnostic about.

Belief is not the same as knowledge, and thus even though the agnostic says that knowledge is impossible he can still believe.



Definition of agnostic is generally in regards to the metaphysical, and particularly the religious.

Err... existence is a metaphysical question... Ontology...? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology)

So please answer the question.


Looking at it this way. Telling someone that you're a weak atheist tells you they're not a strong atheist, but that they're without gods. Telling someone that you're agnostic tells them the way you look at things. That things, particularly the metaphysical/supernatural/religious, are unknowable. Yeah, you COULD believe in those things anyway, but it's nonsensical, and I believe it violates the definition of agnosticism for someone who believes they've interacted with what they believe in to call it agnosticism, because they've stepped beyond the point of it being unknowable.

Who said anything about interacting with them? I said they can believe things even though they claim knowledge regarding this things is impossible. That is absolutely true and does not violate anything of the definition of agnosticism.

To again use your own "Christian room" example, if you tell that room you're agnostic, they don't know if you're a Christian. You've given them information on what you think isn't knowable, but not on what you believe! Weak atheism gives them information about what you believe (or don't believe), and with that information they can conclude you're not a theist - specifically that you're not a Christian.

So, when it comes to "obsession", if you consider making a point of not associating myself with something I consider ignorance, then I suppose I'm guilty.


I only meant you had previously attempted to apply proof necessity to those that do not claim to have or require proof.

I only meant you had previously attempted to apply proof necessity to those that do not claim to have or require proof.

Might be that I didn't make myself clear enough. The proof is necessary when the claim (that there is not a god(s)) is made, and people who say they don't have the burden of proof when they (or others) make that claim are full of shit.

Don't mistake that reasoning for requiring dissenters to prove that believers are wrong when they assert that there is indeed a god. In that situation, burden of proof is on the believer.

You can disagree, but you're wrong. Faith isn't a substitute for knowledge because it is belief in something without knowledge.

You can be agnostic and believe in things within topics you're agnostic about. It's as simple as that.

I still disagree, and I'm going to take a slightly different tack in explaining my position here. A couple of definitions from dictionary.com on 'faith' and 'knowledge'

Faith - 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Knowledge - 2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

Like you say... faith is a belief. Doesn't require anything logical or reasonable behind it.

Neither of us will pretend that knowledge is uncorruptable, i think. Mankind is notorious for skewing it. Faith is one of the biggest corrupters. The believer (and yes, it's not true in all cases) typically experiences something, gains what they consider an awareness of God and places faith in it. Or perhaps the blind faith they had in the first place generated this. Faith becomes a form of knowledge, and whether we like it or not, knowledge doesn't have to be true, rational or logical to be knowledge. The definition doesn't require it, only that a person gain an awareness through the experience. Faith is that awareness, and becomes a substitute for knowledge. I don't think any logical person would consider it a reasonable substitute, but that doesn't change the fact.

Once you establish faith as an alternate, if flawed, form of knowledge, it makes faith and agnosticism mutually exclusive. The believer knows God while the agnostic believes that God or anything like it is unknowable.

They do need to know it. If you're not a theist, you're not a Christian. They could know it, by default, if they ask you if you're a Christian though, but they still end up knowing that you're a theist in the end.

Rather than repeating myself with yet another argument, I'll simply rest on the earlier point and wait for a response on it. I think I grasp the concept, but I'm not sure what a Venn Diagram is anyway, and don't have much more time to look it up.

Huh? Weak atheists cannot be Christian by definition. Christianity requires belief in a god, and weak atheists lack precisely that!

Didn't you just present an argument a few posts ago about Christians who believe in Christ as the savior and therefore don't need to worship God? Pentecostals or somesuch? Or did I miss something and you actually accepted my argument that he's a substitute divinity?

How does it not make sense believing it?

Believing in something that you have no knowledge of, experience with, or rational expectation of being true. That's basically taking someone else's word for it, word that can't be backed up with any kind of proof. That's rational? Doesn't that rationalize the entire mess of religious garbage out there?

You haven't shown any reason, why it's illogical or irrational. Again: Does it violate the definition? No. Does it violate a rule of inference? No.

Faith, by definition is irrational. It doesn't require logical proof or material evidence. Even if you don't accept faith and knowledge as being the same thing, that IS the definition of faith.

You may consider them that, great, that still doesn't make them impossible! What you or I believe is silly, ridiculous, absurd, strange... whatever, doesn't matter here if it's possible!

I don't see what it's necessary to define myself against all possible things. That seems like a colossal waste of time. Particularly when those possible things aren't proven to exist.

This isn't a debate of what's silly and what isn't, this is a discussion about what agnosticism encompasses and like it or not, it encompasses those people too.

See point about them existing. It doesn't matter if there's a possibility that they exist. There's a possibility of a lot of things, but that doesn't make them true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist

I like how they put it:

"Agnostic theism could be interpreted as an admission that it is not possible to justify one's belief in God or gods sufficiently for it to be considered known."

I like it too. People come up with fantastic ways to excuse blatant ignorance. Seriously, does being honest about it being unjustifiable make it less ridiculous to you?

Which you've showed how exactly? By you believing it so? Until you show that they lack rationality, you have done nothing but show it's strange to you.

I think you've done an excellent job of providing the proof for me in the form of that quote. Admission that the position is unjustifiable, irrational.

That line of reasoning is there to show you how you can be an agnostic and still believe in things you're agnostic about.

Or you can tell yourself that. Honestly? It looks like they chucked rational thought out the window, fessed up about it to look a little more honest, and then gave it a name to make it look like it means something. Does an admission really constitute a belief?

Err... existence is a metaphysical question... Ontology...? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology)


I have never heard of ontology before in my life. I had no idea it was even a question for anyone other than hardcore philosophies debating the finer points of "i think therefore I am" We're talking layman's issues here. I'm not a freaking philosopher.

So please answer the question.

I'm not sure I consider this a valid question, but whatever floats your boat.

I'm not sure I even CAN answer that question in any meaningful way that will satisfy you. There's no -belief- required in my interaction with you, unless you're talking about some absolute unconcious fundamental belief that was sown in my childhood. At which point you'll be philosophizing shit that I have no ability to delve into. Suffice it to say that reality is functional to me. I don't require a belief to make it continue functioning. I talk to you, you'll respond. Maybe. Heh. I cut a tree, it'll fall down.
I stab my throat, I'll probably bleed to death. Things we take for granted. Not faith, because we learn these through physical material experience. It's unknowable, I don't have to know it, it just works.

Why do you have to believe in it for it to be there? It simply is.

Faith becomes a form of knowledge, and whether we like it or not, knowledge doesn't have to be true, rational or logical to be knowledge. The definition doesn't require it, only that a person gain an awareness through the experience. Faith is that awareness, and becomes a substitute for knowledge. I don't think any logical person would consider it a reasonable substitute, but that doesn't change the fact.

No, you're using a convenient definition of "knowledge" which allows such inane possibilities.

Knowledge:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.


2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6. something that is or may be known;

7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited. information: He sought knowledge of her activities."


Knowing: "to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty"

Only definition 2 and 3 are compatible with yours and if you take a look at the example given (i.e. "a knowledge of accounting was necessary" and "a knowledge of human nature") you can see that they are talking about familiarity with a subject. Agnosticism doesn't really talk about a "familiarity" with a subject. We can go back to the origins of the term "agnostic" and see what the man who coined the term had to say:

" In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html)

-- Thomas Henry Huxley summarizing what he thought was the fundamental principle of agnosticism. There is nothing of "familiarity" there, just of facts.


Once you establish faith as an alternate, if flawed, form of knowledge, it makes faith and agnosticism mutually exclusive. The believer knows God while the agnostic believes that God or anything like it is unknowable.


Only by that terrible definition. The fact is that agnosticism deals with knowledge as a fact (i.e. "ultimate knowledge"). It doesn't really deal with what you're claiming.

Not to mention that you're generalizing completely since its sure as hell possible to have faith without it "taking the place of knowledge". You can believe in something without evidence and not claim to "know" it.


Rather than repeating myself with yet another argument, I'll simply rest on the earlier point and wait for a response on it. I think I grasp the concept, but I'm not sure what a Venn Diagram is anyway, and don't have much more time to look it up.


The early point doesn't refute anything, even if we take it as true. Even if we take your definition of "knowledge" and even if we believe that some people go ahead and take their faith as some sort of knowledge, that still does not mean all people or all agnostics do, and thus the point still stands: You can be an agnostic theist, and agnostic satan worshiper, an agnostic who believes in ghosts...


Didn't you just present an argument a few posts ago about Christians who believe in Christ as the savior and therefore don't need to worship God? Pentecostals or somesuch? Or did I miss something and you actually accepted my argument that he's a substitute divinity?

No, I mentioned the Protestant faith, which is based on the principle of sola fide, which is the principle that only through faith in Christ (i.e. god) can you be saved. Faith not necessarily knowledge. I presented that to argue against your claim that if you're agnostic you are going to hell.

The fact that you can have faith alone and still be saved (i.e. go to heaven) means you were wrong.


Believing in something that you have no knowledge of, experience with, or rational expectation of being true. That's basically taking someone else's word for it, word that can't be backed up with any kind of proof. That's rational? Doesn't that rationalize the entire mess of religious garbage out there?

Who said they don't have a rational expectation of it being true? You can be an agnostic and still believe something is more likely than not...

You keep making these generalizations and then asking these loaded questions as if that somehow supported your claim! It's you who have to prove irrationality! Do it. Making loaded questions doesn't do it.


Faith, by definition is irrational. It doesn't require logical proof or material evidence. Even if you don't accept faith and knowledge as being the same thing, that IS the definition of faith.

Yet even if we take that definition of "irrationality" you must show how this is something an agnostic simply cannot possess... which this alone doesn't do.

So again: You CAN be an agnostic theist, and agnostic satan worshiper, an agnostic who believes in ghost... you would just be considered irrational by Iehovah if you do so. Great.

I don't see what it's necessary to define myself against all possible things. That seems like a colossal waste of time. Particularly when those possible things aren't proven to exist.


Huh? What the hell are you reading? Who said anything about "defining yourself against all possible things"?

See point about them existing. It doesn't matter if there's a possibility that they exist. There's a possibility of a lot of things, but that doesn't make them true.

That's irrelevant. The meaningful point is that they can be an agnostic theist, an agnostic satan worshiper, an agnostic who believes in ghosts... That alone means that when you use that term "agnostic" you could be referring to one of those people, thus following your ridiculous logic agnosticism is just as "meaningless" as weak atheism.


I like it too. People come up with fantastic ways to excuse blatant ignorance. Seriously, does being honest about it being unjustifiable make it less ridiculous to you?

Yes, fantastic excuses indeed! "I'm not a freaking philosopher" comes to mind... :rolleyes:

Again, it being ridiculous to us is irrelevant. That's completely in unimportant in determining what is or isn't true, and what is possible within the definition of agnosticism.



I think you've done an excellent job of providing the proof for me in the form of that quote. Admission that the position is unjustifiable, irrational.

What do they have to justify? That they believe something? They are completely free to believe whatever they want, and that belief doesn't have to be "justified" to anybody.

If they had claim it's a fact, I would say they have to justify it, but they don't!


Or you can tell yourself that. Honestly? It looks like they chucked rational thought out the window, fessed up about it to look a little more honest, and then gave it a name to make it look like it means something. Does an admission really constitute a belief?


Again, what it looks like to us is irrelevant. You talk about rationality yet it seems you're willing to dismiss anything the moment it looks silly to you.


I have never heard of ontology before in my life. I had no idea it was even a question for anyone other than hardcore philosophies debating the finer points of "i think therefore I am" We're talking layman's issues here. I'm not a freaking philosopher.

You said you were agnostic when it came to the metaphysical, thus you introduce "non-layman's issues" here in the first place. Ontology is one of the most fundamental issues that falls under the umbrella of "Metaphysics". So don't blame me, blame yourself.

What we're left here now is a very comical turn of events: You clearly don't know what "Metaphysics" is yet you had absolutely no problem with taking an agnostic position regarding the Metaphysical.... isn't that exactly what you've been berating other people about all this time? How ridiculous it was to believe things you were ignorant about?


Why do you have to believe in it for it to be there? It simply is.

You said a lot without wanting to reach the ultimate conclusion: Belief without evidence. You believe that I am a human being even though you don't really have evidence of that.

The point is not to say how irrational you are for doing so, the point is to show you how everyone does it. We do it in our every day lives. We take things as true without any real evidence.

You say you do so because "it works". Who's to say that Christianity doesn't work for an agnostic?

Longdebate is looooooooooong.

I am reading it all.

I agree with you. Believing God doesn't exist is still believing something.

Just tell people you're an agnostic. :)

Eww, Agnosticism is gross. The OP is an Atheist. Saying 'non-religious' IS saying the same thing. When you make an positive statement you make a faith-based statement. There are no absolutely certainties, even the cogito is full of daring faith-based premises. We issue positive statements based on how probably correct they are. For instance, the statement: I'm wearing my class ring. It's not a certainty, there are questions drawing from that statement that I can't 'prove' really. It is extremely probably though, because I see the ring, feel the ring, etc. The probability of the existence of God is incredibly low. Therefore, you can say as a positive statement "There is no God." It takes about as much 'faith' to say that as it does to say "People outside of myself exist." It's not doubtable enough to even really consider, in fact, it's quite absurd.

No, you're using a convenient definition of "knowledge" which allows such inane possibilities.

I'm going to take a page from your book here (see: irrationality) and expect an explanation of exactly HOW that possibility is inane.

Back to the subject at hand. It's important to note that something does not have to fit every single definition the dictionary implies to be defined that way. Words have different shades of meaning, depending on how they are used, as you've indicated below.

Knowledge:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

Doesn't fit, obviously.

2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

The true believer often (not always) has what they say to be a familiaity with God. They believe that through prayer, they speak to God, and that God speaks back to them. They have nothing to support thist statement, but clearly we have nothing to prove them wrong. Does that make their connection unreal?

3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

Belief in god is considered an underpinning of the faith experience where one is linked with God. It's "knowing God" as much as he supposedly allows himself to be known to those who worship.

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

I wish I'd caught this one before, because the support is glaringly obvious and is what I was talking about. Perception as knowledge. Things we perceive to be true, but not necessarily are.

5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

This is what I talk about when I speak of false knowledge. What happens if she lied to him, and didn't really have good fortune. He knows something, but his knowledge is flawed.

6. something that is or may be known;

Because of the nature of the subject, that fits perfectly.

7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

Could fit, but with a stretch.

8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited. information: He sought knowledge of her activities."

Knowledge does not have to be complete to be known. An ignorant savage knows that a fire burns, but they don't know how or why or any of that. Faith is knowledge at the primitive level.

Knowing: "to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty"

And here we have opinionated knowledge. Some righteous folk just KNOW that the death penalty is wrong. Others perceive that there is one true god and he is the only way to heavent. They understand these things to be true, but knowledge does not HAVE to be right.

Agnosticism doesn't really talk about a "familiarity" with a subject.

Agnosticism may not, but faith does.



" In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." (http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn.html)

Exactly the point. The agnostic cannot make pretensions to knowledge of that which is not demonstrated or demonstrable, it's a contradiction of the definition. The believer on the other hand, does. To know and worship god through faith is ultimately contradiction with agnosticism, making agnostic theism an oxymoron.

Not to mention that you're generalizing completely since its sure as hell possible to have faith without it "taking the place of knowledge". You can believe in something without evidence and not claim to "know" it.

Are you talking about people who appear to be mindlessly faithful? If you are, you're also talking about the kind of people that will never be considered agnostic, let alone atheist.

No, I mentioned the Protestant faith, which is based on the principle of sola fide, which is the principle that only through faith in Christ (i.e. god) can you be saved. Faith not necessarily knowledge. I presented that to argue against your claim that if you're agnostic you are going to hell.

Now you're saying that it's "not necessarily" knowledge? A "believer" without faith as knowledge is in essence someone saying the words without meaning them. There's faith, and there's following. The difference is obvious.

Who said they don't have a rational expectation of it being true?

The only way they can have a rational expectation of it being true is if they have experienced it directly, or know of someone who has and can prove it. At that point, they are most DEFINITELY no longer agnostic, because it becomes knowable.

You can be an agnostic and still believe something is more likely than not...

You can, but without any sort of proof to back it up, it's all guess and speculation. To go the extra step of faith and be a theist is inherently contradictory, as shown above.

It's you who have to prove irrationality! Do it.

I consider the inherent contradiction to be enough proof of irrationality all by itself. By the way, as pointed earlier, in consideration of this demand, I will be expecting you to prove that the "possibility" that I am right is inane.

Huh? What the hell are you reading? Who said anything about "defining yourself against all possible things"?
Re: [/quote]
You may consider them that, great, that still doesn't make them impossible! What you or I believe is silly, ridiculous, absurd, strange... whatever, doesn't matter here if it's possible![/quote]

That's what I was talkingabout. Just because they may be true doesn't mean they are, and when you haven't shown that they are, there's no reason I should distinguish myself from them.

Yes, fantastic excuses indeed! "I'm not a freaking philosopher" comes to mind... :rolleyes:

What's your point? I'm not making excuses - I have no reason to know anything about Ontology, nor does it have to have any sort of impact on my existence. I don't have to believe in the existence of my gun to shoot someone in the face with it.

What do they have to justify? That they believe something? They are completely free to believe whatever they want, and that belief doesn't have to be "justified" to anybody.

You're evading the point. I said that the point was irrational and that your quote supported it. Rather than address that, you skipped it.

If they had claim it's a fact, I would say they have to justify it, but they don't![/quote]

If they didn't claim it as a fact, they wouldn't be agnostic theists, would they?

I suppose this does constitute sufficient evidence that ONE of your possibilities exists, and that I might need to define myself against them, no matter how irrational they may be.

By rights, however, I think such a classification has no business existing. It's inherently contradictory, and as such irrational. It galls me to have to differentiate myself from those that support such a ridiculous idea, but I guess that happens no matter what your position on something is.

It should also be pointed out, however, that differentiating myself that way only has value to me if I'm clarifying my beliefs, and it's still not sufficient to do the job, considering the broad scope of coverage theism and atheism offer. Maybe I should call myself an agnostic non-theist, hmm?

You said you were agnostic when it came to the metaphysical, thus you introduce "non-layman's issues" here in the first place. Ontology is one of the most fundamental issues that falls under the umbrella of "Metaphysics". So don't blame me, blame yourself.

What I'm telling you is that I've never taken Philosophy classes. I know jack and shit about the metaphysical and religious beyond the layman's understanding. Tell me, when exactly was I supposed to have learned that? I'm not blaming you or myself - I'm asking you to leave it out of the discussion because I don't have an informed enough understanding to discuss it reasonably.

You clearly don't know what "Metaphysics" is yet you had absolutely no problem with taking an agnostic position regarding the Metaphysical

No, I have a layman's understanding of metaphysics which is CLEARLY limited. I've made no study of the suject beyond what I've learned in text and experience. As such, while I may know of the discussion of reality as a knowable or unknowable thing, I don't know it from Ontology, and certainly can be expected to get into specifics.

.... isn't that exactly what you've been berating other people about all this time? How ridiculous it was to believe things you were ignorant about?

I don't berate people for being ignorant, I berate people for passing off ignorance as fact. If you can't see the difference, there's a problem here, and it's you.

You said a lot without wanting to reach the ultimate conclusion: Belief without evidence. You believe that I am a human being even though you don't really have evidence of that.

Except that you're wrong. I DO have evidence. I have my vision, which sees the person in front of me, and registers it as what I have labelled "human". I have my hands, and can touch the person in front of me, registering the feel of skin, on what I label "human". I have my sense of smell, and can tell that the "human" probably hasn't showered yet. I have my hearing, and that "human" is yakking it's head off at me.

In all practical sense and by the evidence of my own senses, you exist. There no element of belief here. It's a fundamental acceptance of reality and interaction with it. Is there an underlying belief there? Probably, and as far as that belief goes to the ultimate reality of things, I'm "agnostic". I think the reality of it is unknowable.

The point is not to say how irrational you are for doing so, the point is to show you how everyone does it. We do it in our every day lives. We take things as true without any real evidence.

That is real evidence, unless you're speaking of the evidence in a purely metaphysical sense as well. Separating them and pretending one is metaphysical while the other isn't is one example of how you can trick yourself into believing that the existence of "God" is every bit as "real" as everything else. By pretending that since 'evidence' has no substance, it doesn't constitute any form of proof.

You say you do so because "it works". Who's to say that Christianity doesn't work for an agnostic?

Because that's not faith. You can call yourself something and not be it, you know. That's why faith is just another form of knowledge. It's simply not the equivalent of material knowledge.:rolleyes:

Longdebate is looooooooooong.

I am reading it all.

Glad to see I'm not boring EVERYONE. ;)

I'm going to take a page from your book here (see: irrationality) and expect an explanation of exactly HOW that possibility is inane.

Because it leads to claiming that faith - belief without evidence - is somehow knowledge, when belief is a completely different thing than knowledge!

Don't agree it's inane? Fine. My argument doesn't depend on this silly quibble of yours.

Doesn't fit, obviously. It most definitely fits.

Agnosticism: "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to being in acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles"


I wish I'd caught this one before, because the support is glaringly obvious and is what I was talking about. Perception as knowledge. Things we perceive to be true, but not necessarily are.You conveniently ignored the preceding part that states it's the act of knowing; you can find the definition of "knowing" and it refers to facts, not just beliefs.



This is what I talk about when I speak of false knowledge. What happens if she lied to him, and didn't really have good fortune. He knows something, but his knowledge is flawed.He know something but that something isn't the truth of what she said. If he knew the truth of what she said, then that's a fact, and is not flawed.


Knowledge does not have to be complete to be known. An ignorant savage knows that a fire burns, but they don't know how or why or any of that. Faith is knowledge at the primitive level.You said it yourself: he's ignorant! That, by definition, means he has no knowledge (on whatever subject he's ignorant of)! He might have faith, but that is not knowledge.

Exactly the point. The agnostic cannot make pretensions to knowledge of that which is not demonstrated or demonstrable, it's a contradiction of the definition. The believer on the other hand, does. To know and worship god through faith is ultimately contradiction with agnosticism, making agnostic theism an oxymoron.Except he doesn't claim to know anything! He claims that knowledge is impossible and he only holds belief: faith.

That quote is proof positive that the definition of "knowledge" being used is one of facts. Of something that is absolutely verifiable, demonstrable like the very statement says. Faith isn't demonstrable, and thus it cannot be what the definition is referring to. Thus:

The agnostic simply takes the position that he should not claim to know something as fact that hasn't been demonstrated as fact. Since an agnostic theist doesn't claim that his belief in god is a fact, an agnostic theist is not an oxymoron. You are quite simply incorrect as already has been proven by the links I provided defining agnostic theism.

Agnostic theism is a very real possibility. That alone proves my point.


Are you talking about people who appear to be mindlessly faithful? If you are, you're also talking about the kind of people that will never be considered agnostic, let alone atheist.I'm talking about agnostics that simply have a belief in god but at not point does this take the place of knowledge for them.


Now you're saying that it's "not necessarily" knowledge? A "believer" without faith as knowledge is in essence someone saying the words without meaning them. There's faith, and there's following. The difference is obvious.Huh? Try to read what I said again. I said that the principle of sola fide requires faith, not knowledge. Thus the agnostic can have faith and be saved.


The only way they can have a rational expectation of it being true is if they have experienced it directlyWrong. There are probabilities and rational arguments that do not require to experience it directly. I can talk about the probability of failure in a certain outcome - lets say playing roulette - without experiencing it directly.


You can, but without any sort of proof to back it up, it's all guess and speculation. To go the extra step of faith and be a theist is inherently contradictory, as shown above.


What guess and speculation? There is no speculation given that you already admit that it's possible. The definition of "agnostic" does not prohibit believing something is more likely than not. There. No speculation needed.

As for the ending comments, you have shown no such thing.


I consider the inherent contradiction to be enough proof of irrationality all by itself. By the way, as pointed earlier, in consideration of this demand, I will be expecting you to prove that the "possibility" that I am right is inane.
What you consider proof is not really important; if this debate hinged on what you thought was proof you could claim all the idiotic things you've said were proven the moment you said them!

As for me proving that they are inane, that is my opinion. My argument doesn't depend on how silly I think your arguments are. If you don't want to agree that they are inane, fine. Please ignore any comment I make regarding the utter idiocy or inanity of your posts.


That's what I was talking about. Just because they may be true doesn't mean they are, and when you haven't shown that they are, there's no reason I should distinguish myself from them.
Please follow the discussion. If they can be true, then when you say "I'm agnostic" I cannot dismiss these possibilities. They are possible, thus you may be one of them when you call yourself agnostic in the Christian room, thus "Agnostic" is just as specific as weak atheist.

What's your point? I'm not making excuses - I have no reason to know anything about Ontology, nor does it have to have any sort of impact on my existence. I don't have to believe in the existence of my gun to shoot someone in the face with it.Yes, you do have a reason to since you claimed that you're agnostic in terms of the metaphysical.... and you apparently have no fucking clue what "metaphysical" even means!


You're evading the point. I said that the point was irrational and that your quote supported it. Rather than address that, you skipped it. 1. Wrong. I said earlier that even if we took your definition of irrational as true you still wouldn't refute my point. How ironic that you dare talk about "evading" and "skipping"....

"Yet even if we take that definition of "irrationality" you must show how this is something an agnostic simply cannot possess... which this alone doesn't do." - me.

2. Moreover, the quote doesn't support your point precisely because they have nothing to justify. You essentially said " unjustifiable thus irrational"... but didn't prove they had anything to justify!


If they didn't claim it as a fact, they wouldn't be agnostic theists, would they?No; if they didn't claim it as a fact, they would be agnostic.

By rights, however, I think such a classification has no business existing. It's inherently contradictory, and as such irrational. It galls me to have to differentiate myself from those that support such a ridiculous idea, but I guess that happens no matter what your position on something is.Once again you bring up this completely irrelevant point of "differentiating yourself". I am not telling you what you should or should not differentiate yourself from. I don't care what you want or don't want to call yourself. Get it? This is quite simply unimportant to me. I'm here to question your claim that agnostic is more specific than weak atheist.

What I'm telling you is that I've never taken Philosophy classes. I know jack and shit about the metaphysical and religious beyond the layman's understanding. Tell me, when exactly was I supposed to have learned that? I'm not blaming you or myself - I'm asking you to leave it out of the discussion because I don't have an informed enough understanding to discuss it reasonably.And what I'm telling you is that you brought it into the discussion by bringing up Metaphysics, thus it's your fault.

The fact is that you claimed you were agnostic regarding the metaphysical; existence is part of the metaphysical, and thus you essentially said you were agnostic in regards to existence among other things. Thus my question still stands.

If you want to say that you aren't agnostic regarding the metaphysical then fine.


No, I have a layman's understanding of metaphysics which is CLEARLY limited. I've made no study of the suject beyond what I've learned in text and experience. As such, while I may know of the discussion of reality as a knowable or unknowable thing, I don't know it from Ontology, and certainly can be expected to get into specifics. Then may I suggest you don't claim you're agnostic about things you know nothing/little about? Is this not the very same "irrational" behavior you were accusing other agnostics of?

I don't berate people for being ignorant, I berate people for passing off ignorance as fact. If you can't see the difference, there's a problem here, and it's you.Like you claiming that you're agnostic regarding the metaphysical... when you're ignorant of the metaphysical?

In all practical sense and by the evidence of my own senses, you exist. There no element of belief here. It's a fundamental acceptance of reality and interaction with it. Is there an underlying belief there? Probably, and as far as that belief goes to the ultimate reality of things, I'm "agnostic". I think the reality of it is unknowable.Huh? You've touched me? You've seen me? You've smelled me? No, you have not. You have senses that are ultimately meaningless if they haven't been used on the thing/being you're speaking of.

Again: You believe that I am a human being yet have no proof that this is so. Have you touched me? No. Have you smelled me? No. Have you heard me? No. Have you tasted me? No. You have done these things to your computer.

You have a belief that you haven't proven, but have convinced yourself of. An agnostic can have a belief he hasn't proven yet has convinced himself of.


---

Short Version:

Can you be an agnostic satan worshiper? Yes. Whether you think that's silly, irrational etc. is unimportant. You consider theists to be irrational yet they clearly can exist.

The fact that agnostic satan worshipers can exist means that if you enter a "Christian room" and say "I'm agnostic" they must allow the possibility of you being a satan worshiper just as if you enter that room and say you are a "weak atheist" they must allow that possibility as well.

How does this make agnosticism more specific than weak atheism?

Glad to see I'm not boring EVERYONE. ;)

Hey, it's a debate with intelligent points from both sides. Rather that the one-sided debate that occurs when one side is advocating theism.

You asked me to back my claims that it was irrational. I showed a contradiction to the two, and based my claims on them. I did what you asked. Now you say that's not enough? That my claim must be based on your opinion of what constitutes proof? If you're going to be that childish, we might as well end the conversation now.

I've gone to a lot of time and energy discussing this with you in a reasonable fashion, and you've done the same. That you feel the need to descend to this kind of garbage:

As for me proving that they are inane, that is my opinion. My argument doesn't depend on how silly I think your arguments are. If you don't want to agree that they are inane, fine. Please ignore any comment I make regarding the utter idiocy or inanity of your posts.

makes me wonder if you haven't simply grown bored with debating it and decided to opt out for an instant win by dismissing me with petty namecalling. Look at what you wrote - you just dismissed my posts as utter idiocy. If you really believed that, why do you bother? Is it some basic anger that I haven't simply accepted what you say for truth and bowed to your demands of following the truth according to Rust?

You were showing a lot more integrity and basic point-to-point argument than some of the previous idiots I've encountered , and it's a disappointment to see you simply discard it now and go gutter level. T

What this boils down to, is that if you can't conduct yourself the way you have been without resorting to that, don't bother. I'm not going to play this argument both ways. I'll trashtalk with loudmouths anytime and do the same for courteous debate, but I'm not going to play mix and match.


Please follow the discussion. If they can be true, then when you say "I'm agnostic" I cannot dismiss these possibilities. They are possible, thus you may be one of them when you call yourself agnostic in the Christian room, thus "Agnostic" is just as specific as weak atheist.

Yes, you do have a reason to since you claimed that you're agnostic in terms of the metaphysical.... and you apparently have no fucking clue what "metaphysical" even means!

1. Wrong. I said earlier that even if we took your definition of irrational as true you still wouldn't refute my point. How ironic that you dare talk about "evading" and "skipping"....

"Yet even if we take that definition of "irrationality" you must show how this is something an agnostic simply cannot possess... which this alone doesn't do." - me.

2. Moreover, the quote doesn't support your point precisely because they have nothing to justify. You essentially said " unjustifiable thus irrational"... but didn't prove they had anything to justify!

No; if they didn't claim it as a fact, they would be agnostic.

Once again you bring up this completely irrelevant point of "differentiating yourself". I am not telling you what you should or should not differentiate yourself from. I don't care what you want or don't want to call yourself. Get it? This is quite simply unimportant to me. I'm here to question your claim that agnostic is more specific than weak atheist.

And what I'm telling you is that you brought it into the discussion by bringing up Metaphysics, thus it's your fault.

The fact is that you claimed you were agnostic regarding the metaphysical; existence is part of the metaphysical, and thus you essentially said you were agnostic in regards to existence among other things. Thus my question still stands.

If you want to say that you aren't agnostic regarding the metaphysical then fine.


Then may I suggest you don't claim you're agnostic about things you know nothing/little about? Is this not the very same "irrational" behavior you were accusing other agnostics of?

Like you claiming that you're agnostic regarding the metaphysical... when you're ignorant of the metaphysical?

Huh? You've touched me? You've seen me? You've smelled me? No, you have not. You have senses that are ultimately meaningless if they haven't been used on the thing/being you're speaking of.

Again: You believe that I am a human being yet have no proof that this is so. Have you touched me? No. Have you smelled me? No. Have you heard me? No. Have you tasted me? No. You have done these things to your computer.

You have a belief that you haven't proven, but have convinced yourself of. An agnostic can have a belief he hasn't proven yet has convinced himself of.


---

Short Version:

Can you be an agnostic satan worshiper? Yes. Whether you think that's silly, irrational etc. is unimportant. You consider theists to be irrational yet they clearly can exist.

The fact that agnostic satan worshipers can exist means that if you enter a "Christian room" and say "I'm agnostic" they must allow the possibility of you being a satan worshiper just as if you enter that room and say you are a "weak atheist" they must allow that possibility as well.

How does this make agnosticism more specific than weak atheism?[/QUOTE]

You asked me to back my claims that it was irrational. I showed a contradiction to the two, and based my claims on them. I did what you asked. Now you say that's not enough? That my claim must be based on your opinion of what constitutes proof? If you're going to be that childish, we might as well end the conversation now.

No, please read what I said carefully before you call me "childish".

You are essentially doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of but in reverse! You're saying "I think this is irrational, therefore I've proven it's irrational"... if you're trying to convince me, then obviously it should try to conform to what I believe is irrational..

You talk about being "childish" yet isn't that exactly what you're being by concentrating on this irrelevant thing?

I asked you support your allegation that it was "irrational" because I didn't agree. However - and I already explained this - even if you proved that it was irrational my point isn't refuted. Why isn't my point refuted even if we consider them irrational? Because my point only hinges on the possibility of such agnostics existing. That's it.

So while you concentrate on this insignificant squabble, you are completely missing the point of the discussion.


makes me wonder if you haven't simply grown bored with debating it and decided to opt out for an instant win by dismissing me with petty namecalling. Look at what you wrote - you just dismissed my posts as utter idiocy. If you really believed that, why do you bother? Is it some basic anger that I haven't simply accepted what you say for truth and bowed to your demands of following the truth according to Rust?

Please spare me the high-horse bullshit.

If had "dismissed" them, I wouldn't have replied them. I called them stupid because I've grown frustrated with this ridiculous "debate". You are simply not following the simple logic being presented here and that is a simple way of venting.

If anyone has "dismissed" anything here it is you who has taken that, albeit harsh, comment way out of proportion and has used that as an excuse to not reply to my points.

This, of course, ignoring all the harsh comments you've made about theists, strong atheists, and weak atheists throughout this thread. Apparently it's fine to insult other people so long as they are not having a direct conversation with you on the internet. Then it's just rude! Discussion-stopping rude!

Although this a decent debate with many valid points, I must request this thread be closed for harsh language, name-calling and disrespect towards others...

Get to your facist work Arms.

Just to chime in here, there is no god damn such thing as "weak" atheism and "strong" atheism. There is just atheism. All atheists do not believe in god. There are a few (which you might incorrectly refer to them as "strong" atheists) which assert that there is no god. They are in their own class, by themselves.

Am I the only one that sees the ridiculousness of "weak" and "strong" atheism?

They are in their own class, by themselves.


...and philosophers have decided to name that class "strong" or "positive" - atheism. I'm glad you agree there is a distinction. Awesome.

...and philosophers have decided to name that class "strong" or "positive" - atheism. I'm glad you agree there is a distinction. Awesome.
It's just that atheism is only a person without theism, or the idea of lacking a theistic belief. I do not think that not believing in god and asserting that he is non-existent should not be in the same "class" of theological belief.

I do not think that not believing in god and asserting that he is non-existent should not be in the same "class" of theological belief.

Huh? "I do not think that not believing... should not be..." Less negatives please? It's kind of hard telling what you actually think.


That being said, the whole point is that within the lack of belief that is atheism, one can take a more distinct position: one can claim that gods simply do not exist. That distinct position is clarified by terms like "strong" and "weak". These words do indeed serve a purpose; they help us be much more specific.

You're free not to use the word... so why you are so against it when it clearly does help us to clarify and when you're not forced to use it, is beyond me.

Huh? "I do not think that not believing... " should not be..." Less negatives please? It's kind of hard telling what you actually believe.

That being said, the whole point is that within the lack of belief that is atheism, one can take a more distinct position: one can claim that gods simply do not exist. That distinct position is clarified by terms like "strong" and "weak". These words do indeed serve a purpose; they help us be much more specific.


You're free not to use the word... so why you are so against it when it clearly does help us to clarify and when you're not forced to use it, is beyond me.
To clarify first

I do not think that not believing in god and being a non-believer...
As in I don't think that if you are not a believer of god and someone else is a denier of god that these two people should be in the same category of theological belief.

Second, to the point, most people do not see (because of the way they are raised, and that the use "strong" atheism defining someone that asserts god does not exist) the different distinctions of atheism, being weak and strong. I personally think that there being a "strong" atheism helps to perpetuate the belief of common people that most atheists think god is non-existent.

As in I don't think that if you are not a believer of god and someone else is a denier of god that these two people should be in the same category of theological belief.

"Atheist" has meant, since the very beginning, "someone that is without gods". Someone can be without gods because he denies all gods completely. So like it or not, they are in the same category. You are going to have to take that up with the etymological history of the word,

The labels "weak", "strong", "positive", "negative" allow us to differentiate these positions.

Sorry, but that's just the reality of the situation: there are nuances in the definition of atheism and often labels help us be specific. "Weak atheism" and "strong atheism" help us be specific.