Poll: Atheist or Agnostic?

[Nitemare]

Agnostic, those closeminded fundy mofo's that think all other religions are going to hell are in for a rude awakening...

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I am a strict Atheist.

I see it this way

...Reasons to believe in a god...
If there is a god, and belief in such god is a requirement to have a good "afterlife" then it may seem more logical to believe.

...Reasons not to believe in god...
There are 6 senses, none detect the presense of said "god".
No Evidence.

So, the only reason to have belief in any god, at least that I am aware of, is really not a reason to "believe", it's a reason to desire or want to believe. I don't believe things just because I want to believe them. I believe things that are facts, I believe things that seem to fit logic. I don't believe things that would be nice to believe in, but don't present any real actual reasons beyond that.

I don't consider that to be "closed minded" as I gave several hours of thought into my decision to abstain from the Church back in 1988 when I was 8 years old.

I am playing the odds, I think that they are very strongly in my favor. Not that it makes any difference though.

You are crazy. OMG Crazy. How arrogant are you to even once, for a second, to think that in this universe, not just the reality of life as we perceive here on earth, but that in this universe, all things came to be out of some random occurance. I've come to the conclusion that anybody that believes, or even doubts in GOD, the supernatural essence of the creator, is simply a FOOL. The kind of fool that could tell you that they have money problems, and when you try to give them a gold brick, they turn it down. FOOLS!

The chance of this life as we know it coming to be, you know the little things like, family, love, hate, pleasure, pain, etc. .... the chance of these things coming to be, in a form that we comprehend and conciously enjoy, the chances are like a tornado ripping through a junkyard and by chance of random, managing to assemple a perfectly flyable, safe, 747 with a bling bling polish to it. Aint gonna happen. The chance of us somehow managing to find a way to communicate, via accepted language, across wires, using an accepted protocol, at damn near the speed of light, all while sitting something as random as a working computer, the chances of that computer coming to be without US is none, just as it is that we came to be without GOD. OF course computers started with a few rows a beads, but even that started with a creator, and it evolved to what it is now. However, it evolved with the help of man kind. Just as Humans have evolved (or mutated hehehe) with the outside assistance of GOD.

Life as we know it has been designed, and our creator gave us free will, simply so that we would not be robots and have the ability to conciously think for ourselves. This free will gives us a degree of seperation from GOD that allows God to relate to us. Without this seperation, we could never appreciate life for what it is, nor understand GOD for what it is.

AMEN.

Exactly TechBoyJK! And that is why I believe in Leprechauns. With their magic, they created all the universe. People often just associate them with a rainbow and a pot of gold, but their powers go far beyond that. They created everything you see and they know everything. And I tell people, "you've got to be crazy if you think all this that you see in front of you was NOT created by the all powerful Leprechauns. I mean, you've got to be a FOOL if you don't believe in them. Yeah, you've never seen one, heard one, or touched one. But they DO exist." Am I right or what TechBoyJK?

All praise the Leprechauns!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: chambersc

atheism, by its definition, says that one believes that there is a 0% chance of a God not "minimally sufficient criteria for qualification as an atheist is simply a lack of belief in God."

Nonsense. Atheism describes any worldview that is not theistic, i.e. does not include the belief "God exists" among its belief-set. It does not require the inclusion of the superfluous belief "No Gods exist."

your statement leaves the option that one believes somewhat (greater than 0%) in a god, which by the very definition of atheism isn't possible.

No, it doesn't. You're making the common mistake of conflating "I do not believe X" with "I believe not-X." Where X stands for the proposition "God exists," the former describes simple atheism, whereas the latter is superfluous. There is nothing incoherent about featuring the former statement in one's worldview without including the latter.

-Garth

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Life as we know it has been designed, and our creator gave us free will, simply so that we would not be robots and have the ability to conciously think for ourselves. This free will gives us a degree of seperation from GOD that allows God to relate to us. Without this seperation, we could never appreciate life for what it is, nor understand GOD for what it is.

This goes back to the whole God Plan versus Free-Will arguement. In other words, would you still exist (as your are) if your parents never had sex with each other?

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: chambersc

atheism, by its definition, says that one believes that there is a 0% chance of a God not "minimally sufficient criteria for qualification as an atheist is simply a lack of belief in God."

Nonsense. Atheism describes any worldview that is not theistic, i.e. does not include the belief "God exists" among its belief-set. It does not require the inclusion of the superfluous belief "No Gods exist."

your statement leaves the option that one believes somewhat (greater than 0%) in a god, which by the very definition of atheism isn't possible.

No, it doesn't. You're making the common mistake of conflating "I do not believe X" with "I believe not-X." Where X stands for the proposition "God exists," the former describes simple atheism, whereas the latter is superfluous. There is nothing incoherent about featuring the former statement in one's worldview without including the latter.

-Garth

i hate to disagree with you but the FACT is that definition of "atheism" is

"the belief that there is no God"
source: The Big Questions: A short introduction to philosophy; 6ed; Robert C. Solomon; 2002

"a disbelief in the existence of deity"
source: m-w.com

EDIT: TOTALLY UNRELATED to what's posted in my post and in no way directed personally towards you Garth but

I vote that when you post in this thread you include your age in the thread. I bet some of these "atheist because god suxors" posts are coming from 15 and under people.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: chambersc
i hate to disagree with you but the FACT is that definition of "atheism" is

I think it's cute when people put the word "fact" in big capital letters like it somehow makes their claim "more true."

"the belief that there is no God"
source: The Big Questions: A short introduction to philosophy; 6ed; Robert C. Solomon; 2002

"a disbelief in the existence of deity"
source: [L=m-w.com]http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism

Hate to break it to you, buddy, but dictionaries don't define words -- they record word usage, even when it's sloppy usage like yours here.

My claim stands, and I am the counterexample to yours. I do not believe a God exists, but likewise I do not believe that no Gods exist. Since I do not have a belief in God, I am not a theist, and must therefore be an atheist. Moreover, since I make no claims to knowledge about the existence of God, I'm properly described as an agnostic atheist. What you describe is usually referred to as "strong atheism" or "positive atheism," a smaller subset of atheism proper.

-Garth

 

[jerryjg]

I would say that after 10 years of studying amatuer philosophy of religion ,t hat i am still agnoistic ,, only because there are a few technical points that require too much time to sort out -(i.E.,i havent yet studied Miguel de unamunos-the spanish philosopher-,and his argument that fiathrequires a sort of "intellectual insanity" if you will.YUet i coulda prolly told you from the begginning,and saved myself an awful lot of wasted time in the process,that there aint no "GOD'per-se.That said,there may as well be one...and there may as well not.

 

[chibchakan]

<--- Agnostic hedonist :thumbsup:

 

[Pacfanweb]

I don't see why people care what other people think. Believe what you want to believe and don't worry about what others think.

 

[hardwareuser]

If somebody asks me whether a god exists, I say no. But I do believe that there's some ultra small chance (like 1E-99^99) that a god exists. I still consider myself an atheist though.

 

[Mo0o]

It's a little too arrogant to be atheist because in the end, you're never sure since lack of proof does not proof the lack of existence. oh well, both are going to hell, anyone wanna carpool?

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
It's a little too arrogant to be atheist because in the end, you're never sure since lack of proof does not proof the lack of existence. oh well, both are going to hell, anyone wanna carpool?

so is it arrogant to think that there isn't a tooth fairy?

 

[jerryjg]

Originally posted by: Garth
I think many in this thread are under some common misconceptions about the meanings of atheism and agnosticism. For example, they are not mutually exclusive with eachother, and agnosticism is not some "middle ground" or "third option" between atheism and theism. Atheism and theism form a perfect dichotomy, and likewise do gnosticism and agnosticism. With respect to eachother, the dichotomies are orthogonal. It is not only coherent, but more useful to talk about agnostic atheists, and agnostic or gnostic theists since this usage is more descriptive.

Also, contrary to what seems to be a popular opinion in here, the minimally sufficient criteria for qualification as an atheist is simply a lack of belief in God, not the inclusion of an affirmative belief that no God exists. Therefore, being an atheist does not incur some ridiculous burden to prove false a hypothesis which is prima facie unfalsifiable.

-Garth

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: chambersc
i hate to disagree with you but the FACT is that definition of "atheism" is

I think it's cute when people put the word "fact" in big capital letters like it somehow makes their claim "more true."

"the belief that there is no God"
source: The Big Questions: A short introduction to philosophy; 6ed; Robert C. Solomon; 2002

"a disbelief in the existence of deity"
source: [L=m-w.com]http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism

Hate to break it to you, buddy, but dictionaries don't define words -- they record word usage, even when it's sloppy usage like yours here.

My claim stands, and I am the counterexample to yours. I do not believe a God exists, but likewise I do not believe that no Gods exist. Since I do not have a belief in God, I am not a theist, and must therefore be an atheist. Moreover, since I make no claims to knowledge about the existence of God, I'm properly described as an agnostic atheist. What you describe is usually referred to as "strong atheism" or "positive atheism," a smaller subset of atheism proper.

-Garth

sorry for the caps on fact, was a little over the top and you caught me on it

second, you're just arguing semantics now. without dictionaries which are arguably the basis for what words mean then one could define red as "the number that comes after 348." the main function of a dictionary is to gather the most common words in our vocabulary and surmise a meaning based on pop. culture.

your second point is flawed. you say "Since I do not have a belief in God, I am not a theist, and must therefore be an atheist. Moreover, since I make no claims to knowledge about the existence of God," but in order to make the assertion that "i do not believe in God" you do assert knowledge about the existence of God in your own mind. you assert to yourself the knowledge that there is no God and being an agnostic atheist is just an oxymoron but i guess based on the relative nature of words it's arguable whether or not you'd consider "agnostic atheist" an oxymoron or not.

 

[jerryjg]

WHAT?? NO TOOTH FAIRY??

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: chambersc
sorry for the caps on fact, was a little over the top and you caught me on it

No sweat.

second, you're just arguing semantics now.

Yes, that is true, but I think I have a more reasonable basis for the usage I've described.

without dictionaries which are arguably the basis for what words mean then one could define red as "the number that comes after 348." the main function of a dictionary is to gather the most common words in our vocabulary and surmise a meaning based on pop. culture.

Also agreed, and I will agree that the sloppy usage is quite a common one. It simply isn't as useful as the meaning I've described, however.

your second point is flawed. you say "Since I do not have a belief in God, I am not a theist, and must therefore be an atheist. Moreover, since I make no claims to knowledge about the existence of God," but in order to make the assertion that "i do not believe in God" you do assert knowledge about the existence of God in your own mind.

No, I don't. Again, you are conflating "I do not believe X" with "I believe not-X." The latter does not follow from the former, however the former is the proper model for my beliefs with regard to the proposition "God exists."

As an example, I also do not believe that Rigel has 5 planets. If your claim were true, I would have to have made up my mind about the number of planets Rigel does have, but that doesn' t make any sense. I don't believe Rigel has 6 planets or 4 planets or 2 planets or even 1. I don't know how many planets Rigel has.

you assert to yourself the knowledge that there is no God and being an agnostic atheist is just an oxymoron but i guess based on the relative nature of words it's arguable whether or not you'd consider "agnostic atheist" an oxymoron or not.

An agnostic is one that does not profess to have true and justified belief -- me. An atheist is one that does not believe in God -- me. I am an agnostic atheist. An agnostic theist would hold a belief that God exists, but would not profess to be able to justify his belief as true. This is simply a more useful way of talking about the subtlties of people's beliefs and their beliefs about their beliefs. Restricting the meaning of "atheist" to "one that believes affirmatively that no Gods exist" ignores the very real subtlties that I've described, not to mention the implicit dichotomies in the very etymology of the words.

-Garth

 

[thirtythree]

Um, what sort of views, OP?

 

[Kadarin]

I consider myself to be agnostic: I believe there is no "God", although I am willing to admit that such a thing is possible. There certainly is no evidence to support its existence, contrary to the ridiculous assertions of TechBoyJK. "God" is not measurable, and there is no proof (nor even evidence) that any phenomenon is directly or indirectly attributable to the intervention of "God".

 

[LtPage1]

i believe that humans are connected in more than the fact that we share a similar biological makeup. i dont think that were just blobs of gunk that happen to coexist- call it mild telepathy, empathy, love, or god- but i dont consider myself an atheist.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: chambersc
sorry for the caps on fact, was a little over the top and you caught me on it

No sweat.

second, you're just arguing semantics now.

Yes, that is true, but I think I have a more reasonable basis for the usage I've described.

without dictionaries which are arguably the basis for what words mean then one could define red as "the number that comes after 348." the main function of a dictionary is to gather the most common words in our vocabulary and surmise a meaning based on pop. culture.

Also agreed, and I will agree that the sloppy usage is quite a common one. It simply isn't as useful as the meaning I've described, however.

your second point is flawed. you say "Since I do not have a belief in God, I am not a theist, and must therefore be an atheist. Moreover, since I make no claims to knowledge about the existence of God," but in order to make the assertion that "i do not believe in God" you do assert knowledge about the existence of God in your own mind.

No, I don't. Again, you are conflating "I do not believe X" with "I believe not-X." The latter does not follow from the former, however the former is the proper model for my beliefs with regard to the proposition "God exists."

As an example, I also do not believe that Rigel has 5 planets. If your claim were true, I would have to have made up my mind about the number of planets Rigel does have, but that doesn' t make any sense. I don't believe Rigel has 6 planets or 4 planets or 2 planets or even 1. I don't know how many planets Rigel has.

you assert to yourself the knowledge that there is no God and being an agnostic atheist is just an oxymoron but i guess based on the relative nature of words it's arguable whether or not you'd consider "agnostic atheist" an oxymoron or not.

An agnostic is one that does not profess to have true and justified belief -- me. An atheist is one that does not believe in God -- me. I am an agnostic atheist. An agnostic theist would hold a belief that God exists, but would not profess to be able to justify his belief as true. This is simply a more useful way of talking about the subtlties of people's beliefs and their beliefs about their beliefs. Restricting the meaning of "atheist" to "one that believes affirmatively that no Gods exist" ignores the very real subtlties that I've described, not to mention the implicit dichotomies in the very etymology of the words.

-Garth

okay, first point. i'll take semantics for $200, Alex.

Let's use your example of Rigel. What I was saying wasn't that you are required to know how many planets Rigel does have, which is a definite number, but rather what you know is what you know and that's your business. I said that in order for you to adequately assert that "I do not believe that Rigel has 5 planets" you would need to do some research on Rigel and whatever you found that lead you to believe that it doesn't have 5 planets (either definite science journal that declares it's a fact that it has 8 planets or some gossip column that says "one planet just broke off leaving 3!) would be the knowledge that would let you adequately conclude that "rigel doesn't have 5 planets." you wouldn't necessarily have to know absolutely how many planets it had in order for my statement to be true.

second, i think i'm understanding your "agnostic atheist" statement. Essentially it's a belief in no god without evidence which by its very nature leave a possibility of doubt to whether you could be wrong (aka god exists). am i wrong?

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I am a strict Atheist.

I see it this way

...Reasons to believe in a god...
If there is a god, and belief in such god is a requirement to have a good "afterlife" then it may seem more logical to believe.

...Reasons not to believe in god...
There are 6 senses, none detect the presense of said "god".
No Evidence.

So, the only reason to have belief in any god, at least that I am aware of, is really not a reason to "believe", it's a reason to desire or want to believe. I don't believe things just because I want to believe them. I believe things that are facts, I believe things that seem to fit logic. I don't believe things that would be nice to believe in, but don't present any real actual reasons beyond that.

I don't consider that to be "closed minded" as I gave several hours of thought into my decision to abstain from the Church back in 1988 when I was 8 years old.

I am playing the odds, I think that they are very strongly in my favor. Not that it makes any difference though.

You are crazy. OMG Crazy. How arrogant are you to even once, for a second, to think that in this universe, not just the reality of life as we perceive here on earth, but that in this universe, all things came to be out of some random occurance. I've come to the conclusion that anybody that believes, or even doubts in GOD, the supernatural essence of the creator, is simply a FOOL. The kind of fool that could tell you that they have money problems, and when you try to give them a gold brick, they turn it down. FOOLS!

The chance of this life as we know it coming to be, you know the little things like, family, love, hate, pleasure, pain, etc. .... the chance of these things coming to be, in a form that we comprehend and conciously enjoy, the chances are like a tornado ripping through a junkyard and by chance of random, managing to assemple a perfectly flyable, safe, 747 with a bling bling polish to it. Aint gonna happen. The chance of us somehow managing to find a way to communicate, via accepted language, across wires, using an accepted protocol, at damn near the speed of light, all while sitting something as random as a working computer, the chances of that computer coming to be without US is none, just as it is that we came to be without GOD. OF course computers started with a few rows a beads, but even that started with a creator, and it evolved to what it is now. However, it evolved with the help of man kind. Just as Humans have evolved (or mutated hehehe) with the outside assistance of GOD.

Life as we know it has been designed, and our creator gave us free will, simply so that we would not be robots and have the ability to conciously think for ourselves. This free will gives us a degree of seperation from GOD that allows God to relate to us. Without this seperation, we could never appreciate life for what it is, nor understand GOD for what it is.

AMEN.

Exactly TechBoyJK! And that is why I believe in Leprechauns. With their magic, they created all the universe. People often just associate them with a rainbow and a pot of gold, but their powers go far beyond that. They created everything you see and they know everything. And I tell people, "you've got to be crazy if you think all this that you see in front of you was NOT created by the all powerful Leprechauns. I mean, you've got to be a FOOL if you don't believe in them. Yeah, you've never seen one, heard one, or touched one. But they DO exist." Am I right or what TechBoyJK?

All praise the Leprechauns!

LOL Your a fool for taking me as someone to confuse something like a Leprechaun with God. Using your example, I could replace Leprechaun with anything that would belittle what I believe God to be. Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, The Mail Man, anything. Your comment just shows lack of respect for the life you have. It really does. Your not disrespecting me as much as you are disrespecting all that is before you. Your making fun of the idea of GOD and that we might as well be saying Leprechauns created the universe is really ignorant.

Why would I think that all of this in front of me was created by Leprechauns? That's crazy talk. I'm not talking about ends of rainbows here, the topic was atheist or Agnostic? Which is you believe that there is no God or you can't tell either way. Not to be concious enough to realize the existance of supreme design of our existance, not necessarily understand it, but not even aware enough to sense it just tells me that a person either lacks spirt and soul, or hasn't risen to a level of awareness to comprehend it.

I've never seen anything to make me believe that Leprechauns created the universe. But I have had spiritual experiences that have changed my life and point of view, things that have proven to me that something greater than us has a reach into our world.

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: cobalt
Agnostic.

same...
why? I really don't know what to believe.

 

[mdchesne]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
An agnostic is just an atheist without the courage of his convictions.

i like that quote.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

You are crazy. OMG Crazy. How arrogant are you to even once, for a second, to think that in this universe, not just the reality of life as we perceive here on earth, but that in this universe, all things came to be out of some random occurance.

That isn't what an atheist necessarily believes, and nowhere in his post did he claim to believe it. You've set up a strawman.

I've come to the conclusion that anybody that believes, or even doubts in GOD, the supernatural essence of the creator, is simply a FOOL. The kind of fool that could tell you that they have money problems, and when you try to give them a gold brick, they turn it down. FOOLS!

I bet it helps you to believe that about people whose worldviews you cannot explain. It's always much easier to dismiss them out-of-hand than to confront the fact that the evidence of God simply isn't very convincing to a great many highly intelligent, knowledgeable people.

Who said I couldn't explain the views at hand? If I feel that something is wrong, should I not dismiss it as such? I've seen a few foolish Phd's. You could have all the knowledge in the world, but if you can't realize that we have a God, supreme being, master designer, whatever, I take you for a fool.

The chance of this life as we know it coming to be, you know the little things like, family, love, hate, pleasure, pain, etc. .... the chance of these things coming to be, in a form that we comprehend and conciously enjoy, the chances are like a tornado ripping through a junkyard and by chance of random, managing to assemple a perfectly flyable, safe, 747 with a bling bling polish to it.

Rhetorically that argument sounds really good, but as many times as I've seen it, I've never so much as once seen something that resembled substantiation of it. Wanna be the first? What, exactly, is the probability of "family, love, hate, pleasure, pain, etc ... coming to be." Tell us how you calculated those probabilities, and then do likewise for the proability of a tornado assemblig a 747 out of a junkyard. I wanna see how those probabilities actually compare.

Ok, think about this. a little. now a little more.... your getting there, come on you can do it.... HOW IN THE FvCK IS A TWISTER GOING TO ASSEMBLE A 747 OUT OF RANDOM PARTS? WILL IT RANDOMLY PUT ALL THE RIVETS IN? WILL IT RANDOMLY LAY THE CARPET DOWN? IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. EVER. I'LL BET MY SOUL ON IT.

seriously, if you need to argue about substantiation, bla bla bla, on that point, you are over complicating things for the sake of blurring the argument, so that you can present some intellectual retort to the fact that your dumb.

Or are you just blowing smoke like everyone else I've ever heard use that argument?

Also, wanna bet that I can demosntrate the occurance of a sequence of events with a probability smaller than 1 in 10^6000 in the span of merely a day?

bla bla bla yea prove it. You want me to prove to you that there is a God? How can I when you aren't concious enough to realize it. You need to grow up spiritually.

Aint gonna happen.

Says you. Lets see you put your money where your mouth is.

I'd like to, but how do I prove that it will never happen? Wait till it does?

The chance of us somehow managing to find a way to communicate, via accepted language, across wires, using an accepted protocol, at damn near the speed of light, all while sitting something as random as a working computer, the chances are none.

Evidence? Proof? Bueller?

Anybody can make assertions like yours, but I know for a fact that they're not substantive.

HOW IN THE HELL DID LIFE COME TO BE AS WE KNOW IT, IN THIS TIME, RIGHT NOW AS YOU ARE READING THIS? are you just in some void where it doesn't matter? wtf?

Life as we know it has been designed, and our creator gave us free will, simply so that we would not be robots and have the ability to conciously think for ourselves. This free will gives us a degree of seperation from GOD that allows God to relate to us. Without this seperation, we could never appreciate life for what it is, nor understand GOD for what it is.

Please do not confuse your beliefs -- however honest and strong -- with objectively established and generally recognized facts.
[/quote]

I've not confused my beliefs with facts, but were is the fact that says god does or does not exist? "with objectively established and generally recognized facts" like what, that the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around it? I guess I'm just more spiritually aware than the rest off yall non believers.

pardon my quoting, it got complicated... =)

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: SilverThief

Originally posted by: her209
If the universe cannot be created without God, then who created God? Similarly, if God was all knowing, then does he know what he's going to do before he does it?

God always was.
He knew everything you would ever say and do before you were even born.

Then that negates free will. Which negates God is omnipotent and all-knowing. Too many contradictions, etc.