BlueGargoyle:I never said it was a compelling argument. I'm not a theist, I am agnostic. I merely acknowledge both possibilities, you seem to ackowledge only your own.

I have not the slightest reason to acknowledge the possibility of god. There is not the slightest shred of credible evidence which has ever been put before my eyes. The absence of evidence does not prove the negative but I am well satisfied that it is unlikely in the extreme.

Think of it this way. You've tried Chinese food, Japanese food, American food of course, but never Indian cuisine. Do you like Indian food or not? There's really no way to be sure without experiencing it for yourself. Of course, that problem is easily solved- go to a good Indian restaurant and order the Chicken Tikka Masala.

And yet, if I know I am prone to enjoying the food of other cultures I might feel certain enough that I would enjoy Indian food as well. And if I don't like anything other than mom's meatloaf, I can be pretty certain I wouldn't like Chicken Vindaloo.

Not so easy with the existence of diety. There might be one, or there might not. I personally do not know, and I am inclined to believe that most, if not all individuals who claim to "know" do not really know at all. They have an opinion and that's it. I don't have an opinion, any more than I have an opinion about which is more uncomfortable- a yeast infection or menstrual cramps. Both are outside my observable existence, and I expect to never have an answer.

Certainly what I have is an opinion. I don't speak to objective fact, however certain I am of my conclusions. I suppose your lack of opinion is why I see it as wishy-washy. The evidence, such as it is, is before you, yet you lack the ability to decide. Indecisiveness would perhaps have been a less pejorative way of saying it, if you prefer that.

Maybe so. In any case I think you're being somewhat close minded in treating the issue as more black-and-white than it really is, at least for others.

And to me, clouding the issue when it seems quite clear-cut is wishy-washy. The difference between my position and close-mindedness is that I am perfectly willing to ponder new evidence and re-evaluate my conclusions. I have done that before on deeply-held beliefs and I can certainly do it again. However unlikely that may seem today.

"Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society".. we know this? how? i didnt know this.

Get thee behind me, rhetorical Satan. Depart, I know ye not.

Aw, fark it.

QED

BlueGargorly

Actually, most of them are extremely conservative republican and Christian. A good time is had by all indeed.

Now I know you're lying. "republican" and "good time" are mutually incompatible statements.

cthellis

Now I know you're lying. "republican" and "good time" are mutually incompatible statements.

Not lying, no. But sarcastic, certainly.

The_Shoggoth

Certainly what I have is an opinion. I don't speak to objective fact, however certain I am of my conclusions. I suppose your lack of opinion is why I see it as wishy-washy. The evidence, such as it is, is before you, yet you lack the ability to decide. Indecisiveness would perhaps have been a less pejorative way of saying it, if you prefer that.


What you see as wishy-washy or indecisive, I see as intellectual honesty. To me, there is absolutely no difference between you and a pentacostal evangelical, or a snake handler. I understand that atheism is not a belief, but strong atheism is still an opinion. An opinion with insufficient basis.

You can argue that you have all the evidence you need as long as you want, but the fundie x-tian can do the same, and I won't be convinced that he has the answers to life any more then you.

You and the bible thumpers are both people who think you've got it all figured out. The company you keep is not very good.

Although I know many of you think you are smarter than me because I know Jesus Christ as my saviour but I just feel sorry for you. I know that's funny but Jesus still loves you anyway. That's all for me.

P.s. I work parttime as a Christian youth minister. I've seen Jesus turn a bunch of bad kids into good ones.

His Sonshine

P.s. I work parttime as a Christian youth minister. I've seen Jesus turn a bunch of bad kids into good ones.

I've seen Jesus turn my backyard into the Garden of Eden. Or close enough. What's your point again?

Noah_Tall: Except that's one thing that all athiests do. They will claim that there is absolutely no such thing as a god.

No, they don't say any such thing. They say "I don't believe in God." Not "no possible way". The vast majority of people who would claim to be atheist would also qualify as agnostic, because if evidence of God were shown, they would be willing to reconsider. However, there currently is no reliable evidence of God, so they don't believe.

But it's assholes like you that like to pretend that being atheist is no different from worshiping Satan, while you and your religion (whichever one it may be) knows all the answers to everything.

If you are thinking "Hey, I'm an atheist and I don't think like that" then you aren't an athiest.

You are too stupid to know what an atheist is. And stupid enough to believe that you can't be atheist and agnostic.

Miriam Webster :
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

I believe there is no diety. I am an atheist, by definition.

I do not know, for a fact, whether there is a god or not. I am an agnostic, by definition.

I consider myself a bright, (http://www.the-brights.net/) but don't use the term a lot because it isn't well known and explaining it is a pain - especially to idiots like you who believe that if you don't believe in God that you obviously spend all of your time screaming "There is no god and there can not be a god!".

You still won't understand, because you are a farking idiot.

I just hate it when people take a word or concept that has an actual written definition, and change it to mean something else

Then you should pull your head out of your ass and quit making up your own meanings for words.

Mugato: Saying that "I don't know" is a lot different than saying "there is no God".

You don't have to say "there is no God" to be an atheist. Most atheists would not say that - they would say that they don't believe in a God.

BlueGargoyle: Hitler was raised Catholic and later became a Christian.

Ummmm... All catholics are christian. Maybe you've seen the crosses with jesus hanging on them in their churches.

His Sonshine: Although I know many of you think you are smarter than me because I know Jesus Christ as my saviour but I just feel sorry for you.

That's OK. I feel sorry for you, too, because I believe you are basing your life around delusions.

I work parttime as a Christian youth minister. I've seen Jesus turn a bunch of bad kids into good ones.

Good for you. You helped some kids. If Jesus could do that on his own, he wouldn't need you. What helped the kids was someone showing them that they cared, that a better life was possible, that having a few ethics and morals means that people will treat you as a reasonable human being instead of as a thug that needs to be locked up.

JuggleGeek

BlueGargoyle: Hitler was raised Catholic and later became a Christian.
------------------
Ummmm... All catholics are christian. Maybe you've seen the crosses with jesus hanging on them in their churches.

Catholics tend not to refer to themselves as "Christian" and vice versa. In this context, "Christian" refers to the protestant denominations. Hitler was raised Catholic, but later became Protestant, and started the German Protestant Church.

I still wanna know how someone who was born in a house without religion and wasn't exposed to much religion until he was older, and thus harbored no beliefs about any supreme beings, is defacto part of a "religion of atheism".

It's non-sense.

There is no god who believes that humans should be harmed unless they deserve it.

His Sonshine

P.s. I work parttime as a Christian youth minister. I've seen Jesus turn a bunch of bad kids into good ones.

Can you say with authority that it wasn't just some standard codes of conduct? Seriously, set boundaries and rules have a remarkable effect on kids - lots of parents are just too soft. Spare the rod, 'n all that.

I've seen a good beating turn a few bad kids into good ones, myself - I administered a few in highschool to a few bullies, broke a few people's ribs, and once that rule was set in stone "don't pick on this kid or his friends", they actually shaped up quite a bit. If their home life had any kind of structure, I'd imagine it wouldn't have been necessary.

nerme
Misinterpretation of great men such as Buddha, Jesus, Muhammad, Confucius, etc., are the root of all evil.

I wouldn't say it's the root of ALL evil... a lot of evil, yes, but not all. I can't attribute any of that to WallMart, but ol' Wallyworld is evil. :)

You know what I find funny about the whole "Atheism is a religion" (retarded) argument?

They are conceding that religion is a fallible and imperfect thing, which is why they want atheism to be a religion, so it can be as fallible as their own beliefs.

Godless Pinko says, ". . . the whole "Atheism is a religion" (retarded) argument . . . "

It is only "retarded" because you don't want to recognize that your belief is *FAITH* !

The argument isn't that Atheism is an actual religion, but that it resembles one since it is based on FAITH -- not PROOF but actual and factual FAITH !

No, Atheism is not faith. Just like you not believing in Santa Claus is not faith. It's a lack of faith. Theism = believes in god(s). A-theism = does not believe in gods.

And I don't need to have proof that something does not exist to not believe in it. There are orange unicorns in another dimension that are controlling your mind. PROVE ME WRONG. The burden of proof is on the ones making the claims, so prove to me there is a god, and then I'll have faith. Pretty simple, really.

Have a good night, you actual, factual retard.

Pinky responds, "No, Atheism is not faith. Just like you not believing in Santa Claus is not faith. It's a lack of faith. Theism = believes in god(s). A-theism = does not believe in gods."

Funny -- you attempt to equate Santa and God! One, of course, being a character which is SUPPOSED to be a living, if magical entity and the other an abstraction representing a rational creator of the universe and all in it. However, they missed that one on the "myths of atheism": Atheists are abstractly challenged.

"And I don't need to have proof that something does not exist to not believe in it."

Who said you did? What I said was that you have no proof that such an abstraction does not exist in a supposedly infinite universe . . . that your BELIEF in that proposition represents a FAITH that your negative claim is true . . .

Indeed! As concerns the abstraction of "God," the Deists have more abstract "proof" for one than you can find negative abstractions to offer as disproof . . .

"There are orange unicorns in another dimension that are controlling your mind. PROVE ME WRONG. The burden of proof is on the ones making the claims, so prove to me there is a god, and then I'll have faith. Pretty simple, really."

Simple? Yes, that's right and since there is no need for "faith" when proof is available! However, you are still "dealing" in the idea of some ENTITY, a physical thing; no matter how remotely transposed. I suppose that is because you have a sophomoric idea of what God happens to be -- perhaps some old codger with long beard? More proof of how challenged you may be as concerns the abstract.

"Have a good night, you actual, factual retard."

Prove to me that there is such a thing as empathy, love, or some other abstraction, romantic or otherwise . . .

. . . but you won't understand that, either, will you, genius?

tadowe

There's no faith involved in athiesm - look at it this way.

A man is born in the woods, raised by deaf-mute parents with no connection to the outside world. At age twenty, this man makes contact with mankind, joining the modern world. Up until that point, he had never even considered the existance of any divine or supreme beings, and doesn't bother himself with any religions whatsoever.

That makes him an atheist, without any need for faith. He has seen no evidence of these gods, so he lacks any faith in their existance.

That's slightly different than the claim that there are no gods - a belief to be sure (we don't know everything yet) but not a religion (more than belief is necessary to constitute a religion, otherwise believing in leprechauns would be a religion).

Further, the difference in the claim that there are no gods is different than religion's general claim that dietie(s) exist. Religion claims that dieties exist, stricly as they see them and as written in their holy books, despite evidence to the contrary. Those who claim that there are no gods are merely making a logical conclusion based upon our current observations - according to (legitimate) science, none of the current religions are correct, and there is no other evidence of supreme beings existing in or in relation to our world. For all intents and purposes, no supreme beings exist for those people.

I would further dispute the idea that "God", in the classical sense, is an abstraction representing a rational creator. Perhaps your personal view of "God" is this abstraction, but the judeo-christian version is anything but abstract OR rational. "He" is too well defined in the various scriptures to be abstract (male??), and his behavior and methods are irrational in the extreme. With an abstract concept of God in your pocket, the idea is too mutable to be argued for or against, as "god" could simply be an idea, and ideas to indeed exist.

must fix last sentence - damn you Fark for not having an edit button!

Third-to-last word should be DO, not TO.

Hey, atheist is kind of a harsh label, don't you think? Rather than "atheist", I like to think of myself simply as a "sane person."

BlueGargoyle: What you see as wishy-washy or indecisive, I see as intellectual honesty. To me, there is absolutely no difference between you and a pentacostal evangelical, or a snake handler. I understand that atheism is not a belief, but strong atheism is still an opinion. An opinion with insufficient basis.

Insufficient by your standards. Not by mine. I don't require perfect knowledge or undeniable truth to make up my mind. Often in life, we don't have access to absolute truths, and yet we must make decisions based on the information we do have. To be unable to do so is, in my opinion, a weakness of character. And so I describe it as wishy-washy. That doesn't make my opinion fact, but this forum is for expressing opinion.

You can argue that you have all the evidence you need as long as you want, but the fundie x-tian can do the same, and I won't be convinced that he has the answers to life any more then you.

I don't have any answers to life. I just know that religion does not hold any more answers than I do.

You and the bible thumpers are both people who think you've got it all figured out. The company you keep is not very good.

I do think I have things figured out in this regard. And I conduct my life accordingly. I don't really see why this is a problem. I sure wouldn't want to go through life second-guessing my choices because I cannot know with absolute certainty what the truth may be.

To all those farkING MORONS who keep spouting "atheism is a religion." You are wrong. You are simple-minded idiots. Religion is belief in a god. Atheism is belief there is no god. You are so insipid with your stupid attempt to argue people into a semantic corner with your tenuous logic. It's as if you think I'm going to say "Hey, maybe you're right, maybe I am religious. Shucks, if I'm religious anyways I might as well admit that there is truly a God who sent his son Jesus to save my soul. Hallellujah."

Keep dreaming asswipes.

fark the baby Jesus in his fictional little asshole.

Mnementh2230 spends two cents, "That makes him an atheist, without any need for faith. He has seen no evidence of these gods, so he lacks any faith in their existance."

No, the man is an "agnostic" since he has no interest in whether there is a God or not -- he has no specific claims to belief/faith, either way.

"That's slightly different than the claim that there are no gods - a belief to be sure (we don't know everything yet) but not a religion (more than belief is necessary to constitute a religion, otherwise believing in leprechauns would be a religion)."

This is about atheism and deism/theism and not religion, per se.

"Further, the difference in the claim that there are no gods is different than religion's general claim that dietie(s) exist."

The "claims" are equal, if opposite. Neither has proof that the other's claim is not valid. That's because atheists insist on confining the entire universe to having the same aspect as we observe from our insular perspective of it. Plus, once again, the effort is made to deny the abstract and only (pretend) to recognize that which can be *physically* demonstrated to our limited abilities of observation.

". . . Those who claim that there are no gods are merely making a logical conclusion based upon our current observations - according to (legitimate) science . . ."

I think they make the mistake of confusing religion with deism. Deism makes no supernatural claims about the existence of God. The discussion is between atheism and deism -- not relgion as opposed by atheism. If science is brought into the argument, it must be recognized that both religion and atheism make claims based on belief but without proof.

" . . . there is no other evidence of supreme beings existing in or in relation to our world. For all intents and purposes, no supreme beings exist for those people."

It seems that you, also, have some concept of an entity of which you find no "evidence." But, as an atheist scientist, you have no problem believing in Big Bangs, black holes and dark matter and energy . . . eh? That is because those concepts are ABSTRACTIONS created to explain what IS OBSERVED but for which no explanation exists in human terms. The same with "God."

If you actually were a scientist of any depth, whatsoever, you would hold your disbelief in common and be an agnostic, neither denying or accepting unproven claims . . .

"I would further dispute the idea that "God", in the classical sense, is an abstraction representing a rational creator."

That the creation appears "rational" in no way attempts to define God, or deny that existence . . . but like so many who label themselves this-way-or-that, you won't be able to actually grasp that, or the concept of an undefined abstraction as a creator of the universe. . .

. . . try to remember that this discussion is between deism and atheism, and not some religion of the supernatural which can be dismissed as hyperbole . . .

Mnementh2230

A man is born in the woods, raised by deaf-mute parents with no connection to the outside world. At age twenty, this man makes contact with mankind, joining the modern world. Up until that point, he had never even considered the existance of any divine or supreme beings, and doesn't bother himself with any religions whatsoever.

I wouldn't be too sure. A guy who lives a few decades in the woods with no explanation for natural occurrences and no one to talk to quite possible created his own gods and spirits just to set his mind at ease and have some conversation. ;)

Of course at that point he's also developing his own language...

Regarding the imbecile demand that atheists "prove" the "truth" of atheism:

Do you believe in the existence or non-existence of the country of Uzbekistan? Do you believe in the existence or non-existence of the counrty of Zembla?

OK, now prove your beliefs.

tadowe

No, the man is an "agnostic" since he has no interest in whether there is a God or not -- he has no specific claims to belief/faith, either way.

You probably skipped most of the thread and didn't bother to read any of the numerous comments regarding this sort of comment so I'll try to be nice. The label "agnostic" doesn't deal with existance in any way, shape, or form (not even to say "you don't care"). The term "agnostic" means "without/lacking knowledge", that is all. The two terms, atheist and agnostic, are not mutually exclusive, nor are they subsects of each other (even though most atheists would be labeled agnostic atheists). The next time you try to correct someone else's label in an attempt to claim them for "your side", please know what the word means. It'll prevent you from making a very common mistake the next time you "correct" someone.

The "claims" are equal, if opposite. Neither has proof that the other's claim is not valid.

Proof is required by those making assertations about something in the positive. Denying the existance of said "something", whether it is unicorns, leprechauns, or some random deity, due to a lack of evidence for said something's existance is not equivalent to claiming something exists just because you or someone else said so. The fact so many self-proclaimed "agnostics" and many of the religious fail to notice the difference between the two stances is bothersome since it eventually leads to the wholy false "Atheism is a religion too!" nonsense.

That's because atheists insist on confining the entire universe to having the same aspect as we observe from our insular perspective of it.

If it affects the natural world/universe then it is possible to study it (how well would depend on technology and time alotted). If it is beyond the scope of the natural world/universe, then it is also beyond study so (most/many) atheists don't care about it due to its inability to affect reality. Again, this stance applies to ghosts just as much as it would "god".

Plus, once again, the effort is made to deny the abstract and only (pretend) to recognize that which can be *physically* demonstrated to our limited abilities of observation.

You are forgetting that once something is given a definition it is no longer considered abstract (which pretty much deflates the rant you made later in your post regarding the big bang). I am curious about why you placed "pretend" in parenthesis, are you convinced atheists deny evidence or proof for deities?

I think they make the mistake of confusing religion with deism. Deism makes no supernatural claims about the existence of God.

You mean beside the claim that one exists, right?

The discussion is between atheism and deism -- not relgion as opposed by atheism.

That's what you are trying to make it into, however, if you had read the thread then you'd know that deism has played almost no role before your arrival.

If science is brought into the argument, it must be recognized that both religion and atheism make claims based on belief but without proof.

After this comment I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you know nothing about science (seeing as how you are claiming that skepticism is the same as faith). The claim of a deity (not to mention anything else) requires evidence on those claiming existance, not on those skeptical of said existance. This is why things like Big Foot, Nessie, ghosts, UFOs and a lot of the other kooky things aren't accepted as fact by mainstream science. Why you feel deities get to have a special bubble of protection regarding skepticism is beyond me.

tadowe

You've got me figured all wrong, and you've got some of your facts wrong as well.

The "claims" are equal, if opposite. Neither has proof that the other's claim is not valid.

The claims are not equal, really. Diests claim a supreme being exists, despite a lack of evidence. Some strong atheists claim supreme beings don't exist, because of the lack of evidence. I'll grant you that they can't observe EVERYTHING, but in as much as science is concerned, it's a sound idea - I'd wager once irrefutable evidence came along to contradict them, they'd be right there saying "hey, it IS a god!"

If science is brought into the argument, it must be recognized that both religion and atheism make claims based on belief but without proof.

Science makes very few, if any claims, without proof. Generally, things are either fact or hypothesis, with a few "laws" in there that there are no way of proving as absolute (mathematically), but hold true all the same. If I base my atheism off science, and only go by what science and reason tell me, I am an atheist who denies the existance of all current "gods" as claimed by religion, but am still open to the possibility that something may yet exist. I would need to see evidence of this existance before believing in it, just as I need to see evidence of my carpeting being installed before I believe the workers have earned their pay.

It seems that you, also, have some concept of an entity of which you find no "evidence." But, as an atheist scientist, you have no problem believing in Big Bangs, black holes and dark matter and energy . . . eh? That is because those concepts are ABSTRACTIONS created to explain what IS OBSERVED but for which no explanation exists in human terms. The same with "God."

I have no concept of an entity which I find no evidence of. I merely worded it that way to better explain it to you. And no, I have no problem believing in Big Bangs, or black holds, dark matter, or energy. Big Bangs could be part of a grand cosmic cycle, matter expanding from the origin, and eventually contracting back under the force of gravity to re-congeal and explode back once again. Black holes are an easy concept - we may not know everything about them, but we've got the basics - super-dense collections of mass so thick that they've collapsed under their own gravity, sucking everything, mass, light, energy, into them. We see evidence of their existance, and their gravometric field. It's not rocket science. As for Dark Matter, it's merely a holding term for the 90-some odd percent of mass that must be out there, but that we cannot accuratly detect yet. Energy... I won't get into it, but take a bloody physics class.

Keep in mind that these are only summations of our current understanding of the phenomina - further observation will lead to further refinement. Nothing in science is ever set in stone.

If you actually were a scientist of any depth, whatsoever, you would hold your disbelief in common and be an agnostic, neither denying or accepting unproven claims . . .

Until I see some evidence of a diety, I'll not believe in any. The esoterical bullshiat you're spouting about some abstract god is no more than a theory with no supporting evidence other than your frank insistance in its possibility. I can insist that monkeys fill fly out my arse any moment, and that has the same validity as your claim, barring some philosophical discussion on the issue.

That the creation appears "rational" in no way attempts to define God, or deny that existence . . . but like so many who label themselves this-way-or-that, you won't be able to actually grasp that, or the concept of an undefined abstraction as a creator of the universe. . .

I don't see why there must be a creator to begin with. If you're so big on abstraction, try this on for size - the universe exists, and has always existed. It is a facet of reality, and our perception of time is the only thing that makes it appear finite, to our as you put it limited observation skills. There is no need for a creator, and you're imagining things.

I have to laugh when I hear about people denying that tree gnomes exist. I mean, just look at the world! How could life be as we know it without tree gnomes? Besides, many people I trust have assured me that tree gnomes exist, and why should I doubt them? Heck, even if I did they'd at best think I'm rebelling and at worst shun me from my family and community. So even if I wanted to say "there's no tree gnomes" what's in it for me?

Really, there's no harm in me thinking there are tree gnomes running our lives. If I'm wrong, then so be it, but if I'm right and YOU are wrong, then boy are you gonna get it!

Mnementh2230 says, "You probably skipped most of the thread and didn't bother to read any of the numerous comments regarding this sort of comment so I'll try to be nice."

It is best to be direct and not prejudge the commentary with such self-serving expostulations.

"The label "agnostic" doesn't deal with existance in any way, shape, or form (not even to say "you don't care")."

That is very perceptive of you! It neither affirms nor denies.

"The term "agnostic" means "without/lacking knowledge", that is all. The two terms, atheist and agnostic, are not mutually exclusive, . . ."

And, you were doing so fine! Atheism, by definition, is a belief/affirmation that there is no such thing as a a "god." Which, with a bit of objective consideration is nothing at all like tje definition of "agnostic:" see www.dictionary.com for confirmation . . .

". . . The next time you try to correct someone else's label in an attempt to claim them for "your side", please know what the word means."

See www.dictionary.com . . . and weep . . .

"It'll prevent you from making a very common mistake the next time you "correct" someone."

Your concern is so. . . so . . . personal! I'm verklempt. . .

"Proof is required by those making assertations about something in the positive."

I suspect that you are another of the abstractly challenged. Since it would be totally futile to disucss this with such an "entity," I challenged you to prove that there is such a thing as . . . say. . . empathy. Or, perhaps you don't believe, have no faith, in such an "entity" which even exists as "empathy?"

Deny the abstract, or cry, "Enough . . .!"

Germag jokes, "I have to laugh when I hear about people denying that tree gnomes exist."

Your mockery is directed at some concept restricted to the newly evolved, but still simian, brain which has no ability to grasp the infinite, much less words expressing abstract thoughts and reasoning. . .

"Really, there's no harm in me thinking there are tree gnomes running our lives. If I'm wrong, then so be it, but if I'm right and YOU are wrong, then boy are you gonna get it!"

Such supernatural twaddle projected from a newly evolved simian mentality! You are the ones misdirecting discussions of deism, atheism and agnosticism onto irrelavencies about the supernatural! You are the exact same, albeit opposite, realms of belief and faith as your religious counterpatrts!!!

What a circus . . .!!!

This is going on 2 days.. amazing.

tadowe

You are the ones misdirecting discussions of deism, atheism and agnosticism onto irrelavencies about the supernatural!

But aren't they essentially the same, except for proximity (both geological and temporal) and scale?

Throughout history, mankind has created its' own lore and supernatural explanations for what they could not understand so as to have some grasp on it. The more obvious/powerful/fearful traits tended to be of godly scale (the sun, moon, death, thunder/lightning, the earth and its' quakes, the sea and its' typhoons...), and much else took lesser supernatural forms. (A single god-caused event, a lesser god or spirit or non-human creature...)

Long afterwards, monotheism as a concept grew from a small tribe, created its' own offshoots, and gained prominence, supplanting (or encorporating) old religion and--now--that which was "religion" for great many peoples is "mythology" and looked at with why chuckles at how silly we were back then.

While "tree spirits" were seldom given greated godhood in most old religions, they were still a part of religions of their day (and still in some now--just of no real consequence). If you were born in a different place and a different era, it wouldn't be "irrelevancies about the supernatural," it would be "a part of life as you knew it."

Tadowe

And, you were doing so fine! Atheism, by definition, is a belief/affirmation that there is no such thing as a a "god." Which, with a bit of objective consideration is nothing at all like tje definition of "agnostic:" see www.dictionary.com for confirmation . . .

See www.dictionary.com . . . and weep . . .

Ahh, so you're one of those people who think common usage trumps the actual definition of a word. Forgive me, I was mistaking you for someone educated in philosophy (not to mention basic English).

tadowe

You just attributed a bunch of stuff to me that I never said.

i-likes-maple-syrup

To all those farkING MORONS who keep spouting "atheism is a religion." You are wrong. You are simple-minded idiots. Religion is belief in a god. Atheism is belief there is no god. You are so insipid with your stupid attempt to argue people into a semantic corner with your tenuous logic. It's as if you think I'm going to say "Hey, maybe you're right, maybe I am religious. Shucks, if I'm religious anyways I might as well admit that there is truly a God who sent his son Jesus to save my soul. Hallellujah."

Keep dreaming asswipes.

fark the baby Jesus in his fictional little asshole.

Well, at least you didn't try to claim that you were rational and reasonable as a basis for your atheism.

\agnostic

Cthellis says, "Throughout history, mankind has created its' own lore and supernatural explanations for what they could not understand so as to have some grasp on it."

During that same time, reason has shown that supernatural explanations for temporal occurences is a matter of belief and based on faith that those explanations are true. Religions, of whatever sort, promote such belief and use supernatural explanations to support their influence on their patrons.

Deism, on the other hand, seeks to support a belief in a planned, rational universe which was created -- not an accident -- and uses reasonable arguments, however circumstantial, to do so.

Having said that, so is Atheism! I mean that it is supposed to be philosophically bound to the abstract arguments which may, or may not dispute or contradict Deism. However, it attempts to range far afield, away from philosophical discussion(s) and literally attack religion and using what argument? "It isn't here, so it must not exist. . ." This philosophical canard notwithstanding, they pretend to being scientifically inclined, reasonable believers and espouse supernatural explanations for observations of our universe; e.g., black holes, dark matter, dark energy (hot and cold), and other unseeable, ad hoc inventions of imagination. . .

"If you were born in a different place and a different era, it wouldn't be "irrelevancies about the supernatural," it would be "a part of life as you knew it.""

As above, so below -- and mankind has had dissent concerning religion and the nature of God since language became used. In all that time atheism has had only one argument: it isn't here, so it doesn't exist . . .

They should be snearing their collective faces off at today's Science and its sustained faith in unproven theory as being veritable truth; e.g., man is causing global warming, afformentioned dark stuff, Big Bangs, etc., but they are not! They are attempting to join the consensus -- they want to join the gang of those with "scientific" faith in such miraculous ST_FF!

Mnementh2230 says, "You just attributed a bunch of stuff to me that I never said."

Sorry for any misattribution. I'll try again . . .

"The claims are not equal, really. Diests claim a supreme being exists, despite a lack of evidence."

The "claims" express opposite beliefs -- one being pro existence and the other con existence. Deism presents abstract explanations supporting a belief in a planned/created universe; e.g., the odds against life occuring spontaneously. Ironically, atheism appears to depend/bet on long shots . . .

"Some strong (emphasis added) atheists claim supreme beings don't exist, because of the lack of evidence. I'll grant you that they can't observe EVERYTHING . . ."

There you have it -- no more need be said. What mankind can observe fills books, but it isn't at much more of an universal level of understanding than a fervent "guess and by golly!" If even that . . .

". . . but in as much as science is concerned, it's a sound idea - I'd wager once irrefutable evidence came along to contradict them, they'd be right there saying "hey, it IS a god!""

You are mixing science with religion as some sort of competitors. Maybe faithful zealots of the Institution of Science may hold their dogma so dear that they attempt to argue science in opposition to religion, but they should watch out -- since they have their own holy ST_FF they seemingly worship as some sort of "gospel," and which supernaturally provides them with EXPLANATIONS OF REALITY WHICH WE DON'T UNDERSTAND!

Too rich!

"Science makes very few, if any claims, without proof."

Gravity molds the universe, stars are fusion reactors, Big Bang, comets/Oort, dark matter, dark energy (both hot and cold), scars on planets caused by meteors, man is causing global warming, Venus runaway greenhouse effect . . . ad nauseam . . .

"Generally, things are either fact or hypothesis, with a few "laws" in there that there are no way of proving as absolute (mathematically), but hold true all the same."

Mathematics can only mold itself to the observation. If the premis concerning the "model" is flawed, then ad hoc explanations are needed to fit the observation into the preconceived "hypothesis." If the math and explanation can't PREDICT future observations, then the "model" is wrong . . . and "science" hasn't predicted ANY of a myriad of recent observations/discoveries . . .!!!

"If I base my atheism off science, and only go by what science and reason tell me, I am an atheist who denies the existance of all current "gods" as claimed by religion . . ."

You can hold whatever religious belief you care to -- who is it that is stopping you? You can claim any imagined support for your belief, and faith in the absence of proof, you desire, also -- go for it!

But you can't claim that science supports your belief, because they don't, and since science only deals with what is observed and makes no claims as truth/fact about what hasn't as yet been seen/detected. Push comes to shove, they will admit that miraculous ST_FF is NOT the truth/fact, but only theory; whatever their personal belief and faith might be. Ohterwise, they are pretend scientists . . .

As I've mentioned elsewhere, atheism only has the one argument: "If we don't see it, we don't believe it." All of which in other circles is described as "mulish." I think they are correct and an atheist's faith turns them into being at war with religion (something they hypocritically accuse religion of causing: war) and desiring their total annihilation; a familiar neolithic attitude observed in today's Middle-East and elsewhere . . .

Murkanen misdirects, "Ahh, so you're one of those people who think common usage trumps the actual definition of a word. Forgive me, I was mistaking you for someone educated in philosophy (not to mention basic English)."

You called your own bluff by not providing the definition you claim is the "actual" one. You only fool yourself with such efforts to invent ad hominem -- and maybe some of your fellow believers in the faith (sometimes i think fervent hope) that there is no such thing as a God.

I suppose your ultimate (forgive the pun) hope is that we can now see everything in the universe there is to see . . .

Wkiernan says, "Regarding the imbecile demand that atheists "prove" the "truth" of atheism: Do you believe in the existence or non-existence of the country of Uzbekistan? Do you believe in the existence or non-existence of the counrty of Zembla? OK, now prove your beliefs."

The atheist can declare that Zembla does not exist because it isn't a physical location on a map, but they can't prove that the Zembla abstraction does not exist as a physical location; if not here on Earth, then somewhere in this infinite universe.

There is no Zembla because it isn't here is anathema to understanding, and just as is science's denial that the strong electrical force is not instrumental in the formation of the universe . . . both deny because they cannot see . . .

Ironic, that.

tadowe

Murkanen misdirects, "Ahh, so you're one of those people who think common usage trumps the actual definition of a word. Forgive me, I was mistaking you for someone educated in philosophy (not to mention basic English)."

You called your own bluff by not providing the definition you claim is the "actual" one.

Atheism. Greek prefix "A-" meaning "without" and Theism meaning belief in diety. Atheism = without belief in diety. Most people use the word "atheist" only to describe strong atheists- those who positively assert there is no god. But there are also agnostic atheists (A- without and gnostic- knowledge, without knowledge)- those who lack belief but also assert no epistemic knowledge of the primus mobile. In other words, those who don't have an affirmed belief and who also don't claim to know.

This actually has been covered quite a few times already. Perhaps Murkanen assumed you had actually read through this thread, or had ever been on an atheism thread on Fark before.

I'm not quite sure deists use "reasonable arguements, however circumstantial" for their arguements, as most any I've heard has a better natural explanation--at least on the Earthly scale.

If you're talking cosmic, universe-spawning only, then you've basically abstracted the divine to pointlessness; it doesn't matter if we call it "God" or "Prime Mover" or "Cause" or "stuff" at that point. What is an "ordered universe" with meaning at that point--the fact that it exists at all? Does the initial cause have any effect otherwise? Does it take an active hand in general and on Earth specfically? If not, why is there a need to personify it at all? (Be it "being" or "force," it exists completely outside our universe's natural laws and essentially transcends our capacity to understand it.) And if so, what "rational arguements" are being presented?

I am an atheist because I do not personally believe in the divine--or in the supernatural. (That which used to be considered "supernatural" now as understood natural sources, and some of that which we now identify as "supernatural" may be found out in the future to have quantifyable sources and repeatable results... at which point they are no longer "supernatural," just understood.) However, on the subject of "God" at the basest level (since some people take it all the way back and only to the "creation of the universe" stage), I admit there is no possible way to know for sure. An entity of such scale could recreate the universe every day, in a different way, but give us all a lifetime's worth of memories and an immense historical scale to measure ourselves from; the sentient species on Earth could have been mauve-colored octopi yesterday. The entire extent of the Bible could have been literally true (just whose literal interpretation, I don't know ;-) )--contradictions and all--and the Earth changed in certain ways that we see issues with it after the fact. Dragons, unicorns, and tree gnomes may have existed entirely as they did in myths, only the evidence of them now is swept away.

You cannot quantify or rationalize the infinite, the omnipotent, and the "outside of our universe."

I do tend to view the whole matter in abtract terms, however, which is why I see the matter of "tree gnomes" to "God" as more a matter of scale and point-of-reference, rather than having a huge theological gulf. And on the matter of a God who did nothing but cause the universe "to be" and otherwise takes no hand in steering it, who may have "a plan" but is content to let the natural laws and effects he caused to be take their natural course... Who the heck cares? It might be fun to chew over theologically, but it is still utterly pointless. (It's like trying to scientifically explain the holodeck in Star Trek. ;-) )

Anything more than that requires further positive statements, which distinctly lack accompanying "reasonable arguements," not to mention accompanying evidence, which makes me more and more treat it in the same light as tree gnomes. It attempts to add more substance to the questions of "what is there" and the "why is there," but the bag is being filled with little other than wishful thinking and personal conjecture, so... Why, again, should I be giving it more thought and applying it more value? Because the self-described "importance" is immense, and more people believe in it in some form or another?

Once my simple monkey brain learned the basics of rational thought, it just finds it can't go down that road. There aren't paths that I've chosen not to apply it.

tadowe

You called your own bluff by not providing the definition you claim is the "actual" one. You only fool yourself with such efforts to invent ad hominem -- and maybe some of your fellow believers in the faith (sometimes i think fervent hope) that there is no such thing as a God.

You become angry about me guessing that you hadn't read the thread, then make a post that demonstrates you haven't read the thread? The academic definitions for atheism and agnostic have been posted at least a half dozen times in this thread alone, both by myself and others, and hundred's of times in past threads. BlueGargoyle even has a chart pic that was posted once or twice demonstrating how the two are not mutually exclusive. If you are too lazy to cover the threads contents before attacking someone's post, then don't be surprised if you get called on that laziness.

I suppose your ultimate (forgive the pun) hope is that we can now see everything in the universe there is to see . . .

Not at all, just that there is currently no objective evidence for the existance of deities. There's also no objective evidence for UFOs or ghosts, yet I don't see people skeptical of these entities being attacked or accused of being "rabid non-believers" by the masses.

I'd suggest you take some basic science courses if you are able. Your attempts to define and explain the items you have mentioned (your claim that gravity, global warming and the big bang aren't supported by scientific evidence for instance) demonstrate a juvenile misunderstanding at best and willful ignorance at worst. I'd also recommend you either check the definition of "rational" or reconsider your self-label of "rational deist", since your presented arguments (claiming atheists have 'faith', that atheists wish to destroy religion, comparing atheists to fundamentalist Muslims) have little to do with rational thought.

BlueGargoyle

This actually has been covered quite a few times already. Perhaps Murkanen assumed you had actually read through this thread, or had ever been on an atheism thread on Fark before.

I had assumed he hadn't since the arguments he/she were making had been defeated soundly before he/she had even arrived. However, he/she became offended that I would accuse him/her of such laziness so I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. I should have known better considering the quality of their arguments, not to mention this is Fark.

Wait... this is Fark? What the hell am I doing wasting time on here?!!

Bluegargoyle chimes in, ". . . those who lack belief but also assert no epistemic knowledge of the primus mobile. In other words, those who don't have an affirmed belief and who also don't claim to know."

But, which is in no way any change to the origial definition of "agnostic," but seemingly is not related to the term "atheist," in any way!? In other words, it is a semantic "excuse" for not being a "conservative" atheist and nothing more than just another misdirection of reality.

"This actually has been covered quite a few times already. Perhaps Murkanen assumed you had actually read through this thread, or had ever been on an atheism thread on Fark before."

I'm one of those who automatically suspects any such consensus as to what reality is, or is not. Indeed, I find that those who support such ganglike agreement are usually bullies and petty tyrants; every ready to attack and "democratically" gather others to attack any disagreement with their declarations and announcements.

So, back to the premis: ahteists deny deism and deists affirm . . . the arguments for deism are in abundance. . . while the argument(...) for atheism remains, "I don't see any such "god(s)/miracles" so it isn't existent in the universe."

Needless to say . . . for the majority . . . that means that "order" wins over "chaos," and however incorrectly emoted . . .

Cthellis says, "(......)"

You can present abstract arguements to support atheism -- go ahead!

However, your personal belief isn't any such valid reason to accept your theory; in the absence of proof your belief fails to provide.

Perhaps you are just confused and have accepted the dogma of one "side" in the absence of any better alternative? Here is a bit more explanatory definiton of "deism." You might actually find that you are more in-line with the "rightwing" of that philosophy: that order over chaos is equivalent to right over wrong . . .

. . . but who can tell with the human psyche. . .?

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_deism.htm

tadowe

But, which is in no way any change to the origial definition of "agnostic," but seemingly is not related to the term "atheist," in any way!? In other words, it is a semantic "excuse" for not being a "conservative" atheist and nothing more than just another misdirection of reality.

No, you're not paying attention. There are agnostic theists also- people who actively believe there is a god, but who do not claim to "know" for sure. As opposed to gnostic or "strong" theists, who not only believe but feel that it is a matter of fact. Then there are strong atheists and agnostic atheists. You may not have been aware of it before, but there is more than one type of agnostic.


I'm one of those who automatically suspects any such consensus as to what reality is, or is not. Indeed, I find that those who support such ganglike agreement are usually bullies and petty tyrants; every ready to attack and "democratically" gather others to attack any disagreement with their declarations and announcements.

But you automatically assume the definition of words used in the dictionary must be the only "correct" one? Again, the dictionary is not the final authority on the meaning of words, especially words from academic disciplines like philosophy and religious studies. The "ganglike" agreement you refer to is a definition used by a "gang" comprised of academics who need a lexicon to discuss these issues all day. The dictionary exists so that laypeople can get a quick and dirty explanation of words for common usage and so that their children can check spelling.


So, back to the premis: ahteists deny deism and deists affirm . . . the arguments for deism are in abundance. . . while the argument(...) for atheism remains, "I don't see any such "god(s)/miracles" so it isn't existent in the universe."

Needless to say . . . for the majority . . . that means that "order" wins over "chaos," and however incorrectly emoted . . .

As a very agnostic person, I don't know what the truth is. But I'm not sure what these "arguments for deism" you suggest are, unless you assume the bible constitutes some kind of proof. If you are a strong theist, then so be it. But I guess what I am wondering is what exactly you think you are arguing against here- that god does exist, or that there is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. It seems that the person making the semantic argument is you.

tadowe: "The argument isn't that Atheism is an actual religion, but that it resembles one since it is based on FAITH -- not PROOF but actual and factual FAITH !"

You don't need to have "faith" to decide not to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

If somebody tells me that the world was built by giant oysters, and I decide not to believe that, it isn't "faith" that is guiding my decision.

tadowe: "I think they make the mistake of confusing religion with deism. Deism makes no supernatural claims about the existence of God. The discussion is between atheism and deism -- not relgion as opposed by atheism. If science is brought into the argument, it must be recognized that both religion and atheism make claims based on belief but without proof."

How is atheism about "making claims"? An atheist claims nothing other than that he/she lacks a belief in a supernatural creator. To lack a belief is not to "claim" you know something.