Well, that's more class anmd sublety than most Fark Atheists.

Mind you, I bet most Farkers who take a hard line here would be more subtle and gracious over a pint.

We are the eyes of God. We are the ears of God. We are the mouth of God.
We are the hand of God.

This is why there is suffering. Because we do not stop it, or rather, because we choose to believe in suffering rather than in our Godliness.

I can't be sure that the universe wasn't farted out of a giant's ass but I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

When he dies he will know without a doubt that God is real. By then it will be too late and he will be lost for eternity. I hope he wises up fast.

Mija: When he dies he will know without a doubt that God is real. By then it will be too late and he will be lost for eternity. I hope he wises up fast.

Really? That is scary. Can you prove your assertion? I don't want to be "lost for eternity" as well.

I'm an atheist because I love arguments over semantics.

It might be easier to determine if God existed if someone could actually define what God is. It ranges from a guy with a white beard who watches everything you do to some vague extra force on par with gravity.

He's just being pragmatic. He believes as much in God and he does in a singing toad at the bottom of the ocean keeping the Earth from hurling in the Sun. I mean it's possible right?

agnostic
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.



So Dawkins is an agnostic atheist.

pippi longstocking: He's just being pragmatic. He believes as much in God and he does in a singing toad at the bottom of the ocean keeping the Earth from hurling in the Sun. I mean it's possible right?

Yes.
I have met this toad.
His name is Kevin.

The problem with the 7 point scale is that it makes absolutely no sense to devotedly religious types -- there's good and there's evil. There's yes and there's no. There's black and there's white.

While a logical person explains a grey area, the only thing a Believer hears is: Ha! He's admitting he's wrong.

This is exactly why Romney, Gingrich and Sanitorum are even remotely electable and why Obama is a muslim socialist.

Mija: When he dies he will know without a doubt that God is real. By then it will be too late and he will be lost for eternity. I hope he wises up fast.

If Dawkins has helped those in need, he will not be lost.
Those that refuse to help the needy will be lost, not matter what other form of fealty they show to a belief in God.

I am just going to leave this here...

s2s2s2: Mija: When he dies he will know without a doubt that God is real. By then it will be too late and he will be lost for eternity. I hope he wises up fast.

If Dawkins has helped those in need, he will not be lost.
Those that refuse to help the needy will be lost, not matter what other form of fealty they show to a belief in God.

Really? That gives me some hope. Do you have any proof to validate your assertion?

s2s2s2: Those that refuse to help the needy will be lost, not matter what other form of fealty they show to a belief in God.

Then there will be a whole lot of religious people in hell.

9beers: I can't be sure that the universe wasn't farted out of a giant's ass but I'm pretty sure it wasn't.

The universe wasn't farted out of a dwarf's ass you heretic!

The First Four Black Sabbath Albums: I'm an atheist because I love arguments over semantics.

I'm an atheist because it keeps me out of foxholes.

Another thing, you don't prove that things don't exist, you prove that they do. Until somebody proves that God exists, he doesn't.

Also, one more point I'd like to make. If you truly believe in God, you're a farking idiot.

Slaxl: Hoban Washburne: Actually, he explained himself well. He doesn't know if there is a god (agnostic), and he doesn't believe that there is one (atheist). This is the way the vast majority of atheists and people that call themselves "agnostic" feel.

Don't be absurd, clearly this means not only is god real, for if there is the slightest possibility then that must mean he's real, and that he's a he, and that everything in the bible is true, except the bits the preachers don't like, but also it means that all atheists are drug addled hipsters who just want to piss off their parents. Jeez, you kids...

In all seriousness now, I'm fed up of living in a world where we atheists need to be seen as unmilitant, because anyone militant is bad, and any atheist that says "there's no god" is immediately classed as "militant", and put in the same category as Bin Laden. It's bullshiat, let's be clear, there are no gods, but i'm not going to blow anyone up to prove that point, i'll just sit back and continue drinking, making the occasional fark post.

Baroness Warsi the biatchwhore thinks that by warning of a rise in militant atheism she can make it appear to be something to be feared, because otherwise rationality will rise up and overtake her stone age beliefs and then she won't know what to do, because she'll have spent her life in service to an obviously false premise.

Also there seems to be a desire to stem atheism and secularism by making religion to be the de facto state of normality, and thus any challenge to it is instantly extremist. It's bullshiat, we are already a secular society, we should be spitting on the faces of religious people who try to change that, rather than welcoming them in under the umbrella of religious tolerance.

Anyone that seeks to regress civilisation by provoking an advancement of religion by stoking primal fears of the unknown does need to be kept away from civilised people.

Hoban Washburne: Outtaphase: I don't need a word to describe the way in which I don't collect stamps.

If the vast majority of the population (I'm talking from a US perspective here) identified themselves as a stamp collector of some sort, there would be a common word for people who don't collect stamps at all.

Ok. I don't watch football.

gimmegimme: Do you have any proof to validate your assertion?

The only evidence I have is biblical.
Matthew 7:15-24
Matthew 25:31-46

whatshisname: s2s2s2: Those that refuse to help the needy will be lost, not matter what other form of fealty they show to a belief in God.

Then there will be a whole lot of religious people in hell.

That is Bible Truth.

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: Do you have any proof to validate your assertion?

The only evidence I have is biblical.
Matthew 7:15-24
Matthew 25:31-46

You could have just said you have no proof and saved yourself some time.

9beers: If you truly believe in God, you're a farking idiot.

Or else it has been proven to you, personally, by God.

gimmegimme: You could have just said you have no proof and saved yourself some time.

If I wanted to save time, I wouldn't have a Fark login.

s2s2s2: 9beers: If you truly believe in God, you're a farking idiot.

Or else it has been proven to you, personally, by God.

Wow. Your god seems like a selfish prick. They didn't share that proof with anyone else, apparently.

the new, ridiculously literal definition of "agnostic" has watered down the meaning to include pretty much everybody. Serious, faithful believers don't say they "know" they say they "believe"... that's technically agnostic. And here Señor Dawkins is saying he doesn't know he believes. If everybody at every point on the spectrum qualifies as "agnostic" what is the point of trying to using it as a descriptive term?

FloydA: WHAT IS GOD?

You are, Floyd, monkey noises and all.

His brand of subjective atheism leads to agnosticism.

Look, the rules of reality are clear: according to everything we know - and according to what allegedly defines God - such a thing CAN'T exist.

Dawkins basically said, "Well, I can't be *sure* the Tooth Fairy *isn't* real. I don't *believe* she's real, though, so I'm open to new thoughts on he matter."

There is no Tooth Fairy, and there is no - there can BE NO - god.

Hoban Washburne: Actually, he explained himself well. He doesn't know if there is a god (agnostic), and he doesn't believe that there is one (atheist). This is the way the vast majority of atheists and people that call themselves "agnostic" feel.

Dead on. Dawkins is not going to do a 180 all of a sudden.

Dawkins is awesome. Takes balls to do to what he does with all the Taliban-like religious nuts in the world.

The atheist vs agnostic debate is almost as pointless as organized religion itself.

You still don't get it so let me explain.
GOD is DOG spelled backwards.
So it all becomes perfectly clear........

I'm still waiting for proof that involves proof. I'd obviously prefer to be incorrect, but there isn't anything that says otherwise. The always comical response, but you can't disprove argument usually will pop up. To "disprove" something, there has to be proof to prove incorrect.

gimmegimme: Your god seems like a selfish prick

Yeah, I guess you are. You refuse to accept your Godhood. Kind of a dick move, "gimmegimme".

Outtaphase: I don't need a word to describe the way in which I don't collect stamps.

An aphilatelist?

itsfullofstars: The atheist vs agnostic debate is almost as pointless as organized religion itself.

The point of organized religion is to foster disbelief.

whatshisname: It might be easier to determine if God existed if someone could actually define what God is. It ranges from a guy with a white beard who watches everything you do to some vague extra force on par with gravity.

FFS I thought this was all cleared up. God exists.

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: Your god seems like a selfish prick

Yeah, I guess you are. You refuse to accept your Godhood. Kind of a dick move, "gimmegimme".

Aren't you concerned that your beliefs are so vague as to be considered incoherent?

FloydA: Until a definition of "God" is provided, there is no point discussing the subject of its existence.

The usual answer to this question is that God is something that can only be understood by a small subset of dedicated theologians and there's no point trying to explain it to the ordinary Joe. They just wouldn't get it.

This is total bulllshiat, of course, but I've seen it used as a defense many times.

Came for the Atheist-Until-Graduation butthurt, was not disappointed.

Hoban Washburne: ultraholland: a "strong" atheist would claim that they know god doesn't exist; a "weak" atheist lacks a belief but can't make the claim that they have knowledge that god doesn't exist.

But you can't prove a negative, and atheism is driven by logic and empiricism (not faith). How would an atheist logically conclude that they KNOW god doesn't exist?

No, Theists want the public to believe that atheists are driven by logic and empiricism, and hence that "atheism" is their substitute for/version of religious faith, but that is wrong, even though one sees this position articulated every time LeTrole posts his inane rants here on Fark.

The simple truth is that our atheism is NOT driven by logic. We simply don't believe the stories told about the existence of god(s), no matter how elaborate or long standing. Hence, for Dawkins to concede that he is an agnostic is logically correct, but does not explain or dilute his atheism. When the argument moves from "belief" to "logic" for those inclined to do so, the only logical position to take is agnosticism (for the simple reason we can't prove a negative), but that doesn't imply any reserve of willingness to believe in the God of Moses/pick your god(s).