Let's do a religion poll!

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mrkun
Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

And see, that's false dilemma. I am not required to choose between your 2 extreme positions. Nor is anyone else. A person could simply hold no opinion whatsoever. On top of that, the concept of "God," which is the basis of this unending theist/atheist argument, is so poorly defined and understood by most people that to claim everyone falls into either one of 2 camps is simply ridiculous.

Your 2nd sentence is correct though.

So I can believe in God (theist), or not choose a side (agnostic), but I can't be opposed to the belief? I have no less proof of Him not existing than a theist has of Him existing.

Not very fair, is it?

This has been Vic's stance for as long as I've seen him posting. If confronted, he'll hem and haw without really saying anything productive about it. Push harder, and he'll say atheists are all proselytizing jerks and the religious are not. Push harder still, and he'll resort to childish namecalling. I've never seen someone with religious beliefs who was so ashamed to just admit them.

Nope, that's not me at all. Once again, we go back to false dilemma. Just because I don't agree with your anti-religious stance does not make me a religious person. And I have NEVER said that "atheists are all proselytizing jerks and the religious are not."

I suppose the reason you might think so (beyond the insistence on false dilemma) is because I find theists easy to deal with. I've read their book, and they have no other arguments beyond their faith which (and this is important) they recognize to be faith (which I respect and leave alone as an inherent human right). With this basic communication established, we can agree to remain civil and, at the very least, keep our distances. OTOH, atheists seem to lack basic reasoning skills, have no book, and claim to hold beliefs based on science that are actually not scientific. Consider it this way: if a fundie Christian were to tell you that science, logic, and rationalization support his beliefs, you'd laugh right? Well... you guys were funny at first, but eventually I found your blind faith, bigotry, and self-deception to be annoying, and arguing against it to be as frustrating as with a bible-thumper who keeps blindly proving his faith with his faith.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mrkun
Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

And see, that's false dilemma. I am not required to choose between your 2 extreme positions. Nor is anyone else. A person could simply hold no opinion whatsoever. On top of that, the concept of "God," which is the basis of this unending theist/atheist argument, is so poorly defined and understood by most people that to claim everyone falls into either one of 2 camps is simply ridiculous.

Your 2nd sentence is correct though.

So I can believe in God (theist), or not choose a side (agnostic), but I can't be opposed to the belief? I have as much proof of Him not existing as a theist has of Him existing.

Not very fair, is it?

That's not what I said at all. Not even remotely. Agnosticism is NOT the act of not choosing a side. As I posted above, theism and atheism are not a spectrum with agnosticism in the middle. That is a misnomer.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

And Garth, take your apologetic atheism elsewhere, eh? Your same-old argument has gotten boring. The divide from theism to atheism is not a spectrum with agnosticism in the middle. Atheism and agnositicism, theism and gnosticism have different meanings. If you want to call yourself an agnostic atheist, by all means go ahead, but if you maintain an active disbelief in a higher power (whereas agnositicism means an active disbelief in revelation/the supernatural/mysticism AND an open acceptance to believing anything that might be observed or rationally deduced), then you are still an atheist no matter how much you want to apology for it. I suggest just coming to terms with it.

Umm... I never said anything in conflict with the above, except for your definition of agnosticism. Agnosticism represents the acknowledgment that one's beliefs or lack thereof with regard to metaphysical reality are not properly justified as knowledge. Only recently has the meaning been distorted by the overwhelming numbers of armchair philosophers that lack the sophistication to discern the real subtleties of its meaning with relation to other -isms.

So, I will continue to make the argument. It isn't unsound.

Gnosticism is the belief in "special knowledge," i.e. mysticism, revelation, etc, all covered under the Greek gnosis. The best known gnostic in history is argubly St. John the Evangelist of Patmos, writer of the Book of Revelation, etc. To him, Jesus was the Logos, the word of God revealed to mankind. That's gnosticism.

None of this is in conflict with the definitions I've given.

Agnosticism is the opposite. The belief that "special knowledge" is impossible and that the sum of all human knowledge is only that which is observable by the senses and that which can be rationally deduced. "It is what it is and only what it is." That sentence is agnosticism in a nutshell.

No, you are over-extending the meaning of agnosticism. You were correct insofar as agnosticism is the opposite of gnosticism, but it simply anything that is not-gnosticism. You are burdening it with beliefs that aren't requisite to its definition. Explicitly, is is a lack of "special knowledge," which says nothing about the content of said knowledge that the agnostic recognizes he is lacking. It says nothing about the agnostic's beliefs about the attainability of said knowledge. What you've described (i.e. only that which is observable by the senses and that which can be rationally deduced) is more accurately categorized as strict empiricism or positivism.

In other words, we have -isms that already describe that which you attribute to agnosticism, so why are you trying to shoehorn them all together into one?

It is ironic that you constantly berate me for allegedly trying to pigeon-hole people into what you think are my narrow ideas about atheism and agnosticism, while at the same time you blatantly and laboriously qualify the two with highly specific and superfluous prerequisites. In fact it is I that have tried to show that the two aren't nearly as narrowly defined as you constantly try to make them.

And as usual, you resort to little hidden insults, etc. to cover up your ignorance with arrogance, your blantant apologism with rudeness. I find such condescension repulsive, and I'm not such a passive pussy, I keep that sh!t out in the open. The armchair philosopher distorting the meaning because he lacks sophistication is you, prick. The definitions are clear and not subject to your "sophisticated" interpretations. Like I said, if you want to be both, that is fine. I don't care, irrational as atheism is. Be proud of it then.

I said only and exactly what I meant. If you took it as an insult, that is your problem.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

No, it's a belief system not based from observation. Without observation, we have no basis of rationalization. We're just stabbing blindly at conjecture and insisting that reality is created by what we believe.

The FSM is IMO a form of reductio ad absurdum that I find to be anti-intellectual. It's like claiming for the sake of argument that your dog is God and then declaring that proves the non-existence of God because your dog doesn't have god-like powers. In other words, it's a confusion of communication that begins from an improper definition. That's why I always argue that any discussion over the existence/non-existence of God has to start by getting all parties to agree on the definition of God. Once you have that, then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, it'll just get stupid and emotional, and fall apart into 2 separate camps of extremists fighting over irrational beliefs rather than any attempts at rational reasoning or communication.

How about you let the people who know the most about atheism tell you what it's all about, yes?

Atheism is a LACK of belief in a higher power. It's that simple. There are offshoots of atheism, but for the most part, it's supposed to be a simple lack of belief in a higher power.

I am not a theist, so therefor, I'm an atheist. I do not actively have FAITH that there is no god, I simply do not believe.

I am somewhat of an anti-organized-theism. I can not STAND organized religion. I don't mind, nor do I actively disagree with theists, though.

And back to the apologism. Atheism is NOT the simple lack of belief in a higher power. That's just silly. And I'll demonstrate right now why that is so. Define "higher power." Oops! Okay... now exactly what is this thing you claim to have a lack of belief in?

Have fun.

 

[Alone]

I don't believe there is a being that is named "God", who is said to have created the world and everything relating to it.

What am I?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mrkun
Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

And see, that's false dilemma. I am not required to choose between your 2 extreme positions. Nor is anyone else. A person could simply hold no opinion whatsoever. On top of that, the concept of "God," which is the basis of this unending theist/atheist argument, is so poorly defined and understood by most people that to claim everyone falls into either one of 2 camps is simply ridiculous.

Your 2nd sentence is correct though.

So I can believe in God (theist), or not choose a side (agnostic), but I can't be opposed to the belief? I have as much proof of Him not existing as a theist has of Him existing.

Not very fair, is it?

That's not what I said at all. Not even remotely. Agnosticism is NOT the act of not choosing a side. As I posted above, theism and atheism are not a spectrum with agnosticism in the middle. That is a misnomer.

Atheism is not something you "choose," per se. It is simply what you are if you are not a theist. I didn't "choose" to lack a belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I just don't believe there is one, so I'm not an IPU-ist. I'm an a-IPU-ist.

When there are perfect dichotomies like theism and atheism, you cannot help but fall into one category or another. Just like the classes of those that have eaten durian and those who have not. You are in one of the two classes, by necessity. You don't have to make any choices in order to be categorized accordingly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alone
I don't believe there is a being that is named "God", who is said to have created the world and everything relating to it.

What am I?

Not enough information yet. How do you believe the world got here then?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth
Atheism is not something you "choose," per se. It is simply what you are if you are not a theist. I didn't "choose" to lack a belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I just don't believe there is one, so I'm not an IPU-ist. I'm an a-IPU-ist.

When there are perfect dichotomies like theism and atheism, you cannot help but fall into one category or another. Just like the classes of those that have eaten durian and those who have not. You are in one of the two classes, by necessity. You don't have to make any choices in order to be categorized accordingly.

And false dilemma combined with reductio ad absurdum. What is that Invisible Pink Unicorn supposed to have done?

edit: beyond being invisible, pink, and a unicorn, all of which are inherently contradictory. I think the failure in communication is your (and others) insistence on relying on symbols and labels. A thing is not what you call it, it is what it is.

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
I don't believe there is a being that is named "God", who is said to have created the world and everything relating to it.

What am I?

Not enough information yet. How do you believe the world got here then?

The big-bang theory, perhaps.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

It's an active belief in something that cannot be known.

Like I said, God is or is not. Your belief or disbelief has nothing to do with that. Believing that it does is what makes both theism and atheism irrational.

which for the theism side, is called faith

i was trying to figure out what Garth calls it for the atheism side, i'll call it anti-faith since i can't figure out what else to refer to it as

Vic gets what i was asking above, if you have to actively disbelieve in something for it not to be true, then it is just like religion. atheism becomes some peoples religion, why would anyone spend so much time actively trying to get others to not believe in something that doesn't exist?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

No, it's a belief system not based from observation. Without observation, we have no basis of rationalization. We're just stabbing blindly at conjecture and insisting that reality is created by what we believe.

The FSM is IMO a form of reductio ad absurdum that I find to be anti-intellectual. It's like claiming for the sake of argument that your dog is God and then declaring that proves the non-existence of God because your dog doesn't have god-like powers. In other words, it's a confusion of communication that begins from an improper definition. That's why I always argue that any discussion over the existence/non-existence of God has to start by getting all parties to agree on the definition of God. Once you have that, then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, it'll just get stupid and emotional, and fall apart into 2 separate camps of extremists fighting over irrational beliefs rather than any attempts at rational reasoning or communication.

How about you let the people who know the most about atheism tell you what it's all about, yes?

Atheism is a LACK of belief in a higher power. It's that simple. There are offshoots of atheism, but for the most part, it's supposed to be a simple lack of belief in a higher power.

I am not a theist, so therefor, I'm an atheist. I do not actively have FAITH that there is no god, I simply do not believe.

I am somewhat of an anti-organized-theism. I can not STAND organized religion. I don't mind, nor do I actively disagree with theists, though.

And back to the apologism. Atheism is NOT the simple lack of belief in a higher power. That's just silly. And I'll demonstrate right now why that is so. Define "higher power." Oops! Okay... now exactly what is this thing you claim to have a lack of belief in?

Have fun.

Your little exercise is patently absurd and even more base than I would've expected from you.

It isn't inconsistent to stipulate the definition of a term while simultaneously lacking belief in the term's instantiation in reality. Honestly, I thought you were smarter than that.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
Atheism is not something you "choose," per se. It is simply what you are if you are not a theist. I didn't "choose" to lack a belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I just don't believe there is one, so I'm not an IPU-ist. I'm an a-IPU-ist.

When there are perfect dichotomies like theism and atheism, you cannot help but fall into one category or another. Just like the classes of those that have eaten durian and those who have not. You are in one of the two classes, by necessity. You don't have to make any choices in order to be categorized accordingly.

And false dilemma combined with reductio ad absurdum.

You're going to have to do better than to simply allege that I've committed a fallacy. And where is the reductio?

What is that Invisible Pink Unicorn supposed to have done?

Why is this question relevant?

edit: beyond being invisible, pink, and a unicorn, all of which are inherently contradictory. I think the failure in communication is your (and others) insistence on relying on symbols and labels. A thing is not what you call it, it is what it is.

You are invited to elaborate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
I don't believe there is a being that is named "God", who is said to have created the world and everything relating to it.

What am I?

Not enough information yet. How do you believe the world got here then?

The big-bang theory, perhaps.

So the universe created itself? Whether by accident or intention, the Big Bang theory is still the act and process of the universe creating itself. And (as you said "the world") that process lead to the creation of the stars, the elements, solar system, the earth, everything else, etc. therefore by definition of "said to have created the world and everything relating to it," the universe is your God and you just said you don't believe in the universe.

Sigh... when are you people going to realize that "the world" is simply your perception and it doesn't extend further than your eyeballs? It's so frustrating arguing with people who think their personal abstracts are actually concrete reality.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

No, it's a belief system not based from observation. Without observation, we have no basis of rationalization. We're just stabbing blindly at conjecture and insisting that reality is created by what we believe.

The FSM is IMO a form of reductio ad absurdum that I find to be anti-intellectual. It's like claiming for the sake of argument that your dog is God and then declaring that proves the non-existence of God because your dog doesn't have god-like powers. In other words, it's a confusion of communication that begins from an improper definition. That's why I always argue that any discussion over the existence/non-existence of God has to start by getting all parties to agree on the definition of God. Once you have that, then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, it'll just get stupid and emotional, and fall apart into 2 separate camps of extremists fighting over irrational beliefs rather than any attempts at rational reasoning or communication.

How about you let the people who know the most about atheism tell you what it's all about, yes?

Atheism is a LACK of belief in a higher power. It's that simple. There are offshoots of atheism, but for the most part, it's supposed to be a simple lack of belief in a higher power.

I am not a theist, so therefor, I'm an atheist. I do not actively have FAITH that there is no god, I simply do not believe.

I am somewhat of an anti-organized-theism. I can not STAND organized religion. I don't mind, nor do I actively disagree with theists, though.

And back to the apologism. Atheism is NOT the simple lack of belief in a higher power. That's just silly. And I'll demonstrate right now why that is so. Define "higher power." Oops! Okay... now exactly what is this thing you claim to have a lack of belief in?

Have fun.

Hehe, well that was cute.

So, what you're telling me is that what I'm SAYING I am, is not actually me, and I'm something completely different. What exactly would you call me, then?

RIDDLE ME THIS: I do not believe in any higher power, at all. I will never believe in a higher power. I am not "undecided" yet I also do not have FAITH in there being NO god. I simply do not believe. What am I?

Have you looked the definition of Atheist up, yet? Have you found yet, that there are actually different KINDS of atheists, and not simply just contradicting definitions of the word based on their origin?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Garth
Atheism is not something you "choose," per se. It is simply what you are if you are not a theist. I didn't "choose" to lack a belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I just don't believe there is one, so I'm not an IPU-ist. I'm an a-IPU-ist.

When there are perfect dichotomies like theism and atheism, you cannot help but fall into one category or another. Just like the classes of those that have eaten durian and those who have not. You are in one of the two classes, by necessity. You don't have to make any choices in order to be categorized accordingly.

And false dilemma combined with reductio ad absurdum.

You're going to have to do better than to simply allege that I've committed a fallacy. And where is the reductio?

What is that Invisible Pink Unicorn supposed to have done?

Why is this question relevant?

edit: beyond being invisible, pink, and a unicorn, all of which are inherently contradictory. I think the failure in communication is your (and others) insistence on relying on symbols and labels. A thing is not what you call it, it is what it is.

You are invited to elaborate.

Case in point. Reduction ad absurdum is not necessarily a fallacy. I simply said that I find its to be anti-intellectual. However, the question is relevant because of EXACTLY what you are inviting me to elaborate. WTF. The anti-intellectualism is the absurd symbol usage ala name-dropping. I expect you to be smarter than that, but I have long ago because used to the fact that obfuscation (and other forms of intentional miscommunication) are your favorite forms of argument. If you don't/can't get what I'm saying, say so. Let me be clear: a thing is not what you call it, not what symbol or label you use to reference it in your mind. A thing is what it is. FFS, that's the most basic axiom of logic.

 

[Alone]

So the universe created itself? Whether by accident or intention, the Big Bang theory is still the act and process of the universe creating itself. And (as you said "the world") that process lead to the creation of the stars, the elements, solar system, the earth, everything else, etc. therefore by definition of "said to have created the world and everything relating to it," the universe is your God and you just said you don't believe in the universe.

Sigh... when are you people going to realize that "the world" is simply your perception and it doesn't extend further than your eyeballs? It's so frustrating arguing with people who think their personal abstracts are actually concrete reality.

We're not discussing my beliefs; I'm asking what you would label a person who is against the belief in God.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

No, it's a belief system not based from observation. Without observation, we have no basis of rationalization. We're just stabbing blindly at conjecture and insisting that reality is created by what we believe.

The FSM is IMO a form of reductio ad absurdum that I find to be anti-intellectual. It's like claiming for the sake of argument that your dog is God and then declaring that proves the non-existence of God because your dog doesn't have god-like powers. In other words, it's a confusion of communication that begins from an improper definition. That's why I always argue that any discussion over the existence/non-existence of God has to start by getting all parties to agree on the definition of God. Once you have that, then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, it'll just get stupid and emotional, and fall apart into 2 separate camps of extremists fighting over irrational beliefs rather than any attempts at rational reasoning or communication.

How about you let the people who know the most about atheism tell you what it's all about, yes?

Atheism is a LACK of belief in a higher power. It's that simple. There are offshoots of atheism, but for the most part, it's supposed to be a simple lack of belief in a higher power.

I am not a theist, so therefor, I'm an atheist. I do not actively have FAITH that there is no god, I simply do not believe.

I am somewhat of an anti-organized-theism. I can not STAND organized religion. I don't mind, nor do I actively disagree with theists, though.

And back to the apologism. Atheism is NOT the simple lack of belief in a higher power. That's just silly. And I'll demonstrate right now why that is so. Define "higher power." Oops! Okay... now exactly what is this thing you claim to have a lack of belief in?

Have fun.

Hehe, well that was cute.

So, what you're telling me is that what I'm SAYING I am, is not actually me, and I'm something completely different. What exactly would you call me, then?

RIDDLE ME THIS: I do not believe in any higher power, at all. I will never believe in a higher power. I am not "undecided" yet I also do not have FAITH in there being NO god. I simply do not believe. What am I?

Have you looked the definition of Atheist up, yet? Have you found yet, that there are actually different KINDS of atheists, and not simply just contradicting definitions of the word based on their origin?

First, nice dodge. You completely avoided the question and continued using the term "higher power" as though it has an agreed definition.

Second, the fact that you "will never believe" in this "higher power" means that you will continue to affirm this state of disbelief even in the event (unlikely as it may be) that is proof is provided. That is faith by definition. Get a clue.

Finally, the American Heritage dictionary definition of atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
I had been loathe to post this prior to however because (this argument has occurred before, believe it or not ) now Garth will tromp on in with some nonsense that dictionary definitions are anti-intellectual blah blah blah blah blah.

Yaknow, if you guys wanted to use the word "skeptic," I wouldn't have an issue here. It would fit well, except according to the active faith belief which manowar821 has given testimony here to.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alone
We're not discussing my beliefs; I'm asking what you would label a person who is against the belief in God.

And back to square one.

I'm sorry, you want me to label you based on your belief in your own undefined personal abstract. That's what you're asking me to do.

There's a reason why most people don't recognize this as such, you know. You're asking me to dominate you into submission for the purpose of you finding comfort with an assigned place in human society. Sorry, man, but no, I won't nip your neck for you.

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
We're not discussing my beliefs; I'm asking what you would label a person who is against the belief in God.

And back to square one.

I'm sorry, you want me to label you based on your belief in your own undefined personal abstract. That's what you're asking me to do.

There's a reason why most people don't recognize this as such, you know. You're asking me to dominate you into submission for the purpose of you finding comfort with an assigned place in human society. Sorry, man, but no, I won't nip your neck for you.

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

By my own description, that of not believing in God, I am an atheist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
We're not discussing my beliefs; I'm asking what you would label a person who is against the belief in God.

And back to square one.

I'm sorry, you want me to label you based on your belief in your own undefined personal abstract. That's what you're asking me to do.

There's a reason why most people don't recognize this as such, you know. You're asking me to dominate you into submission for the purpose of you finding comfort with an assigned place in human society. Sorry, man, but no, I won't nip your neck for you.

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

By my own description, that of not believing in God, I am an atheist.

*Whew* and you feel better now, don't you?

 

[exdeath]

Nisan and Ethos?

I Am Alpha and Omega, The Beginning and the End, The First and the Last...

...

Omega-1 restarted. Alpha-1 genome restructured. Confirming exon replacement...

Base code 85 million, 100 million! It's speed is overwhelming! Alpha-1 to Razeal Central, access confirmed. Initializing fake net. Disconnected!

Activating emergency shelter... Denied! Contamination is spreading widely. Captain!

Omega-1, they are attacking! We can't stop them! 98% of our weapons have been taken over.

Auto pilot system has been accessed. And it's phased space logic is being rewritten.

Ergo area is increasing. An internal plane is forming. Switch to space displacement mode. Alpha-1, confirming transfer of coordinate codes. Cordinates input NX128EZ061, the main planet!

...

Born from the fallen wreckage, 'she' slowly arose, her long hair blowing in the wind as her eyes reflected the dawn's breaking light. Reflecting the start of the day that 'god' and 'humankind' fell to earth.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

No Scientology? What if John Travolta or Tom Cruise lurk here?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't care, irrational as atheism is.

What's so irrational about it?

I assume he'll claim that it's ignorant to be 100% against something that you can't prove.

But then, can you not be 100% against the flying spaghetti monster, since you can't prove it doesn't exist?

I'm starting to lean more towards atheism.

No, it's a belief system not based from observation. Without observation, we have no basis of rationalization. We're just stabbing blindly at conjecture and insisting that reality is created by what we believe.

The FSM is IMO a form of reductio ad absurdum that I find to be anti-intellectual. It's like claiming for the sake of argument that your dog is God and then declaring that proves the non-existence of God because your dog doesn't have god-like powers. In other words, it's a confusion of communication that begins from an improper definition. That's why I always argue that any discussion over the existence/non-existence of God has to start by getting all parties to agree on the definition of God. Once you have that, then the conversation can continue. Otherwise, it'll just get stupid and emotional, and fall apart into 2 separate camps of extremists fighting over irrational beliefs rather than any attempts at rational reasoning or communication.

How about you let the people who know the most about atheism tell you what it's all about, yes?

Atheism is a LACK of belief in a higher power. It's that simple. There are offshoots of atheism, but for the most part, it's supposed to be a simple lack of belief in a higher power.

I am not a theist, so therefor, I'm an atheist. I do not actively have FAITH that there is no god, I simply do not believe.

I am somewhat of an anti-organized-theism. I can not STAND organized religion. I don't mind, nor do I actively disagree with theists, though.

And back to the apologism. Atheism is NOT the simple lack of belief in a higher power. That's just silly. And I'll demonstrate right now why that is so. Define "higher power." Oops! Okay... now exactly what is this thing you claim to have a lack of belief in?

Have fun.

Hehe, well that was cute.

So, what you're telling me is that what I'm SAYING I am, is not actually me, and I'm something completely different. What exactly would you call me, then?

RIDDLE ME THIS: I do not believe in any higher power, at all. I will never believe in a higher power. I am not "undecided" yet I also do not have FAITH in there being NO god. I simply do not believe. What am I?

Have you looked the definition of Atheist up, yet? Have you found yet, that there are actually different KINDS of atheists, and not simply just contradicting definitions of the word based on their origin?

First, nice dodge. You completely avoided the question and continued using the term "higher power" as though it has an agreed definition.

Second, the fact that you "will never believe" in this "higher power" means that you will continue to affirm this state of disbelief even in the event (unlikely as it may be) that is proof is provided. That is faith by definition. Get a clue.

Finally, the American Heritage dictionary definition of atheist is "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
I had been loathe to post this prior to however because (this argument has occurred before, believe it or not ) now Garth will tromp on in with some nonsense that dictionary definitions are anti-intellectual blah blah blah blah blah.

Yaknow, if you guys wanted to use the word "skeptic," I wouldn't have an issue here. It would fit well, except according to the active faith belief which manowar821 has given testimony here to.

No no no, I suppose I should re-clarify this... I did not mean that I would never believe in a god of any sort, regardless of proof of it's existence. I meant that I am nearly certain that the proof will never surface, because I don't exactly believe there is any sort of logical reason as to WHY a "god" were to exist.

To answer your question, "higher power" is any form of immortal intelligence that has power over our lives, and/or acts as a creator(s). Anything unnatural, anything paranormal, etc. The only thing I truly trust, is facts and unsubstantial proof.

I am not a theist.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
No Scientology? What if John Travolta or Tom Cruise lurk here?

Bah! When it comes to scifi, I'm a Heinlein fan

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CKent

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mrkun
Anyone that isn't a theist is an atheist. It's that simple. Agnosticism is an epistemilogical position and is actually compatible with both theism and atheism.

And see, that's false dilemma. I am not required to choose between your 2 extreme positions. Nor is anyone else. A person could simply hold no opinion whatsoever. On top of that, the concept of "God," which is the basis of this unending theist/atheist argument, is so poorly defined and understood by most people that to claim everyone falls into either one of 2 camps is simply ridiculous.

Your 2nd sentence is correct though.

So I can believe in God (theist), or not choose a side (agnostic), but I can't be opposed to the belief? I have no less proof of Him not existing than a theist has of Him existing.

Not very fair, is it?

This has been Vic's stance for as long as I've seen him posting. If confronted, he'll hem and haw without really saying anything productive about it. Push harder, and he'll say atheists are all proselytizing jerks and the religious are not. Push harder still, and he'll resort to childish namecalling. I've never seen someone with religious beliefs who was so ashamed to just admit them.

Nope, that's not me at all. Once again, we go back to false dilemma. Just because I don't agree with your anti-religious stance does not make me a religious person. And I have NEVER said that "atheists are all proselytizing jerks and the religious are not."

I suppose the reason you might think so (beyond the insistence on false dilemma) is because I find theists easy to deal with. I've read their book, and they have no other arguments beyond their faith which (and this is important) they recognize to be faith (which I respect and leave alone as an inherent human right). With this basic communication established, we can agree to remain civil and, at the very least, keep our distances. OTOH, atheists seem to lack basic reasoning skills, have no book, and claim to hold beliefs based on science that are actually not scientific. Consider it this way: if a fundie Christian were to tell you that science, logic, and rationalization support his beliefs, you'd laugh right? Well... you guys were funny at first, but eventually I found your blind faith, bigotry, and self-deception to be annoying, and arguing against it to be as frustrating as with a bible-thumper who keeps blindly proving his faith with his faith.

We've had this conversation before and you conceded my point. It's unfortunate that you took nothing from it and are spewing the same old argument.