It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the real Atheists please stand up

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
In a sense yes. I'm an agnostic-atheist which means that while I lack belief in deities I do not deny the possibility that a god or god(s) exist. So there could very well be a god.


alrighty then, but you wont believe it even if you do see it correct ?




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I don't know if you're intentionally twisting words around or simply have a problem with reading comprehension or maybe you're just reading with 'bigot blinders' on.

Agnostic atheist doesn't mean "if I find out I'm wrong I still won't believe", it relates to a present skeptical state. Hell, I've already explained this.

I think some theists find it hard to understand that atheists are open to the possibility that they're wrong, which makes the belief slightly less arrogant than those who claim to be gnostic theists.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I don't know if you're intentionally twisting words around or simply have a problem with reading comprehension or maybe you're just reading with 'bigot blinders' on.

no actually, this is exactly what agnostic-atheist means and says to me and everyone else after the think about it just for a short time.


Agnostic atheist doesn't mean "if I find out I'm wrong I still won't believe", it relates to a present skeptical state. Hell, I've already explained this.

yes it means "I am scared of being wrong" (that's right fear Gods wrath and what you do not understand)


I think some theists find it hard to understand that atheists are open to the possibility that they're wrong

ok all the fanciful definitions... the switch is either off or it is on, there is either a 1 or a 0

agnostic atheists must be androgynous its gross !

Agnostic by itself would do but Atheists are not rational, so they get what they give...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I don't know if you're intentionally twisting words around or simply have a problem with reading comprehension or maybe you're just reading with 'bigot blinders' on.

no actually, this is exactly what agnostic-atheist means and says to me and everyone else after the think about it just for a short time.


No, it really isn't. An agnostic is someone who doesn't know, thus is open to correction. An atheist is one who doesn't believe. An agnostic atheist is therefore someone who doesn't know and is open to correction but still doesn't believe.

And saying people can just think about it for a short period of time doesn't prove any point. You actually have to demonstrate your position with such concepts as 'reason', 'logic', and 'evidence'.




Agnostic atheist doesn't mean "if I find out I'm wrong I still won't believe", it relates to a present skeptical state. Hell, I've already explained this.

yes it means "I am scared of being wrong" (that's right fear Gods wrath and what you do not understand)


..hooray, more bigotry!
I'm really happy that it's been easy to not stoop down to your level. You just throw out bigoted statements left and right with zero justification.

Please, show me how 'agnostic atheist' means 'I'm scared of being wrong'.




I think some theists find it hard to understand that atheists are open to the possibility that they're wrong

ok all the fanciful definitions... the switch is either off or it is on, there is either a 1 or a 0


Fanciful definitions? I've tried explaining this to you dozens of times already and I've tried using multiple analogies. What you find above is that I explained to you, in simple terms, what an agnostic atheist means. You seem to be impenetrable to logic.



agnostic atheists must be androgynous its gross !


Hey look, bigotry against both atheists and androgynous individuals!



Agnostic by itself would do but Atheists are not rational, so they get what they give...


How are atheists not rational? Please, provide some level of evidence for atheism being irrational. Please provide some evidence that you understand what the word "rational" even means.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How are atheists not rational? Please, provide some level of evidence for atheism being irrational


they attack anybody and everyone, it does not matter who... even Scientist with faith.

and they just look funny, (in my personal opinion)










posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How are atheists not rational? Please, provide some level of evidence for atheism being irrational


they attack anybody and everyone, it does not matter who... even Scientist with faith.


Um...no, they don't. I don't attack biologist Dr. Ken Miller, a devout Catholic and the star witness of the Kitzmiller trial. I don't attack Robert T. Bakker, a Pentecostal preacher who is also a paleontologist and is partially responsible for the scientific revelation that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Why? Because they don't reject science.



and they just look funny, (in my personal opinion)


Yeah, they do look really funny:



Man, that woman looks like an absolute freak, no wonder she was an atheist.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Lol, madness. That's Audrey. She was a nondenominational Protestant, so far as anybody can figure out. You probably meant Katharine. Definitely a fox,

waitforthesignal.blogspot.com...

and godless to the core.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Oops, posted the wrong image actually. You're right. Audrey was actually from a Christian Science background. Katherine was the atheist. I have a folder of images that I'm using as reference for some drawing stuff, picked the wrong Hepburn.

My bad.

Anyway, point still stands, atheists can be sexy.
I mean, unless of course you think all of these people are freakish



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


If some evidence is presented that shows that a god or gods exist than I would have to become a theist although, depending upon which god(s) turned out to be real I might stay a non-religious theist (such as a Deist) rather than join a religion (I'm not fond of organized religion).

I follow the evidence as best I can and I like to have as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as possible, in order to do that I need to keep an open mind to the evidence.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
Why are you an Atheist?


Because I don't believe in God.




If it’s because you believe there is no God, then how can you be so sure?


I'm not SURE, I just don't believe in it.



If it’s because there is a lack of evidence for you to believe it and/or because there is a lack of evidence to the contrary, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?


It's because there is a lack of evidence and the claim for the existence of a God (as you have described) is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.



If you do not believe, while at the same time, hold the position of saying it’s not untrue either, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?


It's not a decision, it's a belief (or actually the absence of one) . I don't decide what to believe. I either believe something or not. I can't change my mind by deciding to believe.




If you reject it, and because the word reject, means to put aside, send back or not comply, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?


No. As I said, it's not about a decision on my part.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
Actually, agnostic and atheist are two separate claims. One is related to knowledge. I do not know, I am agnostic. The other is related to belief. I do not believe, I am an atheist.


Agnosticism and Atheism are both related to knowledge, and from out of some degree of knowledge stems ones belief. So why are you separating the two?, i.e. as in categorizing one as being just about knowledge and the other being just about belief.



Originally posted by Madnessinmysoul
An agnostic atheist is therefore someone who doesn't know and is open to correction but still doesn't believe.


If someone does not know, then surely they have to take the stance of saying either, it is unknown or I do not know what to believe. And not “I do not know, therefore, I don’t believe.”

In fact, I have issue with Bertrand Russell’s teapot concept. Of course he uses a slightly absurd idea to help illustrate his point but what if we take a more plausible example.

“Are there ants in your basement?”.
Lets just assume that it’s going to take along time to gather all the evidence to find this out. So essentially at this moment in time, it is unknown, due to lack of evidence to it and a lack of evidence to the contrary. Because of this lack of evidence, a person would say it is “unknown” or “I don’t know” but IMO it just seems illogical, to then go on to add, that they “don’t believe it”

Of course there is nothing wrong with someone saying they are open to the possibility that there is a God or that they “do not know” but think it unlikely;

But should the definition of Atheism, be incorporating those combined motifs or should those extras only be determined, after further investigation, instead of being a part of a disambiguous atheist definition?


- JC



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 





Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it’s because you believe there is no God, then how can you be so sure?
I'm not SURE, I just don't believe in it.


But if you are not sure, then how can you state you “don’t believe”, isn’t it better to remain undecided or to say you don’t know?



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it’s because there is a lack of evidence for you to believe it and/or because there is a lack of evidence to the contrary, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?
It's because there is a lack of evidence and the claim for the existence of a God (as you have described) is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.


There is also a lack of evidence for the universe happening/creating on it’s own, unaided, which I personally consider to be an extraordinary claim as well(not that scientist have made that claim yet of course)



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you do not believe, while at the same time, hold the position of saying it’s not untrue either, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?
It's not a decision, it's a belief (or actually the absence of one) . I don't decide what to believe. I either believe something or not. I can't change my mind by deciding to believe.


But coming to a belief or a non-belief, is about making a decision.
You may instinctively belief something or not believe something, and at the same time not be aware of any slow decision making process that led you there, but you have made some type of decision, whether you are aware of it or not.



Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you reject it, and because the word reject, means to put aside, send back or not comply, then doesn’t that equate to you being undecided?
No. As I said, it's not about a decision on my part.


But if you haven’t made a decision, then that either means you are unsure, or you are undecided.


- JC



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
wow those are some ancient pics... both ladies.

I totally loved the way people dressed back in the 40's and 50's

one of my favorite periods in History !



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


If some evidence is presented that shows that a god or gods exist than I would have to become a theist although,

well there you go, excellent... find it !


(I'm not fond of organized religion).

I am sensing a great feeling of desperation on your part, if you still wish to prove me correct in my Atheists are Arrogant thread go ahead... find something to lash out at



I need to keep an open mind to the evidence.

good deal, open-mindedness is the way to go...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
While I agree that that can be an interesting distinction, I am content with learning one thing at a time. Lots of single words describe diverse groups of people with some beliefs in common, but also with differences within the community. Look at the thousands of denominations of Christians, for example.


But why should you need to ''learn'' this about a deliberately ambiguous statement or description, that can easily be accurately defined by the person who's making it ?

That's like, if we were having a discussion about whereabouts we lived, me making a statement saying that ''I live on an island off the North-West cost of Europe''. Why should the onus fall on someone else to glean a more accurate description of my slightly ambiguous location, when I could easily say ''I live in Britain'' to give a more precise description of my country of residence and avoid unnecessary confusion ?


Originally posted by eight bits
They both describe themselves as "person," and seem OK with that. Why? Because person doesn't make a distinction between logical and illogical examples, and nobody expects it to make the distinction. If the distinction is important to somebody, then the person could say "I am a logical person," or indeed, "I am a logical atheist."


No, they both describe themselves as ''atheist'', which is an ambiguous term that only tells half of their position on the subject. The ''person'' aspect of my comment has no relevance to this at all.

So why would someone use as an ambiguous term that can either mean ''an absence of belief in God or gods'' or ''believing that God or gods do not exist'', when the differences between the two definitions may be highly significant in the likely context that they'll be using this description.


Originally posted by eight bits
No, like atheist and theist, it only describes the answer I would give to one religious question. It doesn't tell the theist, for example, whether or not I might have dismissed her god. It doesn't tell another agnostic whether I believe that it is possible that someday evidence may yet emerge to decide the question of gods, or instead, that the question is in principle beyond evidence.


''Agnostic'' gives a broadly clear description of the person's position on the subject. Someone can describe themselves as this without any need for a follow-up explanation, and people will have a general view of their stance on the subject.

''Atheist'', however, doesn't differentiate between the fundamental variation in the active/passive belief of the subscriber to this term, and puts the onus on other people to find out this difference.

Of course, we can get more accurate definitions from each other if we are in the throes of a theological discussion, but I think that you are neglecting the fact that most of the times that people drop in terms such as ''I'm an atheist'', ''I'm an agnostic'', ''I'm a Christian'' is in a normal throwaway discussion, or as a statement.

For example, if someone says ''I'm a Christian'', then I don't really go about asking what denomination they belong to ( unless it was relevant to the discussion at hand ), because their description explains to me broadly what their beliefs are.


Originally posted by eight bits
Even in this thread, Joe needed to ask what I thought a god was. That's a pretty fundamental religious question. So, all of the "big three" terms are incomplete, IMO.


That's why I'm becoming increasingly fond of the term ''ignostic''.



Originally posted by eight bits
Sure. But there are also plenty of people who say "I believe in some higher power," but nothing more specific than that, or belong to a non-credal faith (Unitarian Universalist, for instance), or ...


Well, I'd say that those who'd say ''I believe in some higher power'' are saying that they generally believe in a God, without believing in organised religion. Although, I'd also agree that they could probably be a little more descriptive in their statement.

However, I'm sure people who say that aren't aware or intending any ambiguity with their comment.


Originally posted by eight bits
And while "I'm a Christian" is more informative than "I'm a theist," sometimes I want to talk about what Christians have in common with Neoplatonic pagans, for example.


The difference here being that your interest in more specific information regarding the Christian denomination that they adhere to, is down to a slightly more niche interest on your part.

In general conversation, or as a statement, ''I'm a Christian'' is suffice to broadly outline the Christian's beliefs.

''I'm an atheist'' does not accurately outline the atheist's position.


Originally posted by eight bits
Lol, because that's how conversation works! You ask me a question, and I answer as best I can. We give and take, and then, if all goes well, we manage to communicate the information which you were seeking.


I think you're missing the point. I'm not talking about a theological discussion, but when these descriptions are used in general conversation, or are made as a statement.

Why would someone intentionally use an ambiguous term like this to describe their position, when there are other more accurate descriptions ( such as ''agnostic atheist'', as someone above used ) to describe their position.

On of the keys to communication is to be as concise and coherent as possible, to avoid confusion or misunderstanding.

I'm generally confused when someone says to me: ''I'm an atheist'', because I do not know whether the person who is saying this is conveying an absence of belief in God or a belief that God doesn't exist. This is an extremely important difference; far more so than finding out whether a Christian is a Methodist or a Baptist ( I have to admit that I don't know the differences between the two
).

It is not always possible for me to offer a follow-up question, nor should it be up to me to have to clarify a comment that someone else could easily put with greater accuracy.


Originally posted by eight bits
You ask somebody "What's your opinion about religion?" That is one hell of a question. Are you asking my religious affiliation, if any, or were you looking for a two-semester university course? Well, let's start small and see where it goes from there. "I'm an agnostic," I answer. And we're off.


Like I say, there's a difference between these terms in the context of a religious discussion, as opposed to the use of them as a label to convey someone's broad stance on the subject.

It's the latter that I'm objecting to.


Originally posted by eight bits
I share some of the concerns you raise in your final few paragraphs. I just don't know what to do about that. I believe that people can pretty much call themselves whatever they like. That doesn't mean I always understand what they are saying, or that I would describe them that same way. But if that's how they think of themselves, what can I do?


As I say, it is of no concern to me whether someone is a theist, atheist, agnostic, ignostic, pantheist, polytheist, or just believes in the flying spaghetti monster !

It is not the position that they hold that I'm objecting to.


It is just in this case that I perceive a lot of intellectual dishonesty in the use of ''atheist'' by some people to define themselves.

I think that some atheists use the term to convey a dogmatic ''there is no God'' belief, while using the ''absence of belief'' definition if pushed further.

Some people seem to be exploiting this ambiguity in the term, and the different perceptions of the term that others may hold, to get a ''best of both worlds'' scenario, whereby they can express their illogical beliefs while hiding behind the logical definition if pressed.

I abhor intellectual dishonesty, and I just see this as another example of it.



edit on 21-12-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Actually, agnostic and atheist are two separate claims. One is related to knowledge. I do not know, I am agnostic. The other is related to belief. I do not believe, I am an atheist.


Sorry to re-reply to your comment, but I needed to comment on something that I forgot to bring up early this morning ( it was about 2 in the morning over here
).

As I said, your comment that agnostic and atheist are two different claims is true to an extent; after all, the original use of the words were based on these meanings, but, in reality, I think that your point is somewhat moot, and here's why:

Some people claim to ''know'' that God exists, so does that mean that they don't ''believe'' in God as their view is based on ''knowledge'' ?


This is going to sound like a bad Christmas-cracker joke, but unfortunately there's no amusing punchline...

What do you call someone who ''knows'' that God exists ? A theist.

What do you call someone who ''knows'' that God doesn't exist ? An atheist.

What do you call someone who ''believes'' that God exists ? A theist.

What do you call someone who doesn't ''believe'' that God exists ? An atheist.


There's no difference between ''knowledge'' and ''belief'' in the terms atheist/theist, and consequently the same applies to agnostic...

An agnostic has no knowledge of the existence or not of God or gods, as well as having neither belief nor disbelief in the existence of God or gods.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
How are atheists not rational? Please, provide some level of evidence for atheism being irrational


they attack anybody and everyone, it does not matter who... even Scientist with faith.


Um...no, they don't. I don't attack biologist Dr. Ken Miller, a devout Catholic and the star witness of the Kitzmiller trial. I don't attack Robert T. Bakker, a Pentecostal preacher who is also a paleontologist and is partially responsible for the scientific revelation that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Why? Because they don't reject science.



and they just look funny, (in my personal opinion)


Yeah, they do look really funny:



Man, that woman looks like an absolute freak, no wonder she was an atheist.



Wow !

Theists do look amazing lol



- JC



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Bravo !


so the Agnostics, who are quite rational do not really like Atheists tagging themselves onto and making Agnosticism look arrogant (dogmatic) ?

sorry to jump in and dirty up your topic here, we have some Atheists around bludgeoning others...


It is not my intention to turn this into a willy-waving contest between theists, agnostics and atheists !

From my experience, most people who call themselves atheists, do not rule out the possibility of the existence of God or gods, which would put them more in the agnostic camp ( neither believing or disbelieving ).

However, I have my suspicions that some of these people who define themselves as atheists do hold an active disbelief in the existence of God, and use the term ''atheist'' to hide their illogical belief, while exploiting and paying lip-service to the fact that this same term can also imply to the more logical stance of not ruling out the existence of God or gods.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Double post.

edit on 21-12-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


I love Audrey Hepburn, who wasn't an atheist.

She was so beautiful !







edit on 21-12-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join