Dear "agnostics": You're atheists, get over it.

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by bsbray11

 

You failed to notice that it provides two different definitions, and two slight variations of the second definition. If you want to play the dictionary game, then by the first definition, you're asserting that atheists are all evil or bad. That's not very nice or even factually accurate.

Let's look at the second definition though. There are two parts. "a' and "b."

a. : a disbelief in the existence of a deity - This is what we would refer to as "weak" atheism, or agnostic atheism. Simply disbelieving (not believing) in deities is not the same as saying that we know that deities do not exist. Additionally, lacking a belief in deities is not the same as believing that there are no deities. An agnostic atheist would say "I don't believe in any deities, and I don't claim to know whether or not they exist."

Why, would you not believe in a deity that exist?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

I don't think you know how religion works, . . .

I definitely want to hear this one.

Please tell me.

religion is not about proof its about believe, so what you have is the church is trying to convert people with giving as little proof as possible with the idea that the less proof you believe with the bigger your reward in heaven.

John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

www.biblegateway.com...


So if they provide you with proof then the are not following their religion correctly?

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by stonergeek

 

Atheists love to talk about facts. Where do facts come from? Many of these facts are merely probability based assumptions.

Are they? Is the Earth an oblate spheroid or is it flat? Does the Earth orbit around the Sun, or does the Sun revolve around the Earth? Many of these facts can be confirmed, and are not simply based on mere "probability".

Yes, many are, and many are not. Just because many "facts" can be confirmed, it does not negate the rest of those that cannot. There is a great deal of faith in science in our culture, and most of us barely understand a fraction of all of the science. When you get right down to the nature of reality, do we really know anything that has not been taken on faith? You had faith in your teachers, your scientists, your technology, etc., that it was all factual. We teach theories as fact, when there is not true evidence of these facts. It's just that it seems those who rely on science believe that science has all the answers. Someday perhaps, but not now.

Originally posted by Doublemint
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

I don't think you know how religion works, because you keep talking about not making a claim so you do not have to provide proof. Why, would the believe need to prove that deities exist, or why would nonbelieves need to prove that deities don't exist?

I've never made any claim. I never made any positive claim for non-existence.

Why, would the believe need to prove that deities exist, or why would nonbelieves need to prove that deities don't exist?

The burden of proof isn't on me, or anyone other than the person making the claim.

The burden of proof lies with the bibles that religions ARE formed on, the burden of proof remains on the Priests who have declared unmitigated truths for centuries (e.g. Babies will go to purgotory)

The superstitious beliefs, the miracles, the metaphysical theories; God, hellfire, heaven, re-incarnation, matyrdom, jihad.

Here's a few quotes which support my argument here:-

"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned."

"Only Sheep need a shepherd!"

(The Shepherds being the preists and the authors of the bible)

"Humanity without religion is like a serial killer without a chainsaw."

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

"The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers."
-- Denis Diderot

"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
--Napoleon Bonaparte, French emperor (1769-1821).

"Clearly the person who accepts the Church as an infallible guide will believe whatever the Church teaches."
-- Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) Roman Catholic philosopher

"An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support."
-- John Buchan

reply to post by awake_and_aware


I do not care whether the burdon of prove is on you, on me, or on them. No one has to suply proof for a belielf, because its an option to believe, you just simply took the easiest path, so whats your point?

still you haven't answered why do you not believe in a diety that exsit. Because to claim that you do not believe an any diety is fine, who cares, but when you claim that a diety does or doesn't exist means you don't know. So you are either claiming that you don't believe in a diety that doesn't exsit which does make since, or you are claiming that you don't believe in a diety that does exsit which does not make since. So you can take a look at that and say you are an agnostics because you can switch back and forth as you please

reply to post by Doublemint

still you haven't answered why do you not believe in a diety that exsit.

My position is obvious, and i have itterated it many times as have other non-believers here on ATS;

There isn't sufficient evidence to warrant belief in such extraordinary claims, providing I am given the required evidence to meet the claimed description of God, and furthermore, the description of man-made religion, I will renounce my Atheism and cease criticising whichever religion turns out to be "evident". Allbeit, i still wish not to submit to such a cult.

I hope that answers your question.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


So why do you keep that part of the deffintion? Why would you be open to converting to a religion?

Are you an agnostic atheist? If so then you are not an atheist and the point of the thread was to tell agnostics that they are atheists not the agnostics are agnostic atheists. So please tell me how atheists are agnostics, don't bring in your own personal belielfs just stick to the topic.

reply to post by Doublemint


I'm agnostic because no one knows the answer to the cause (if any) of the universe and/or cosmological forces behind it, there's no knowledge of it yet. ("i don't know") and i'm atheist because i find the "GOD" hypothesis to be a rediculous hypothesis and not based on any empirical evidence or logic.

I don't even claim GOd doesn't exist, i still await evidence provided by those who "claim" or "feel" he does.

Perhaps you should prepare yourself for a more agressive opinion on the "God Hypotheis":-

God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

God, The Failed Hypothesis; How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Perhaps an ambitious attempt, but it has it's merrits.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Doublemint

 

I'm agnostic because no one knows the answer to the cause (if any) of the universe and/or cosmological forces behind it, there's no knowledge of it yet. ("i don't know") and i'm atheist because i find the "GOD" hypothesis to be a rediculous hypothesis and not based on any empirical evidence or logic.

I don't even claim GOd doesn't exist, i still await evidence provided by those who "claim" or "feel" he does.

Perhaps you should prepare yourself for a more agressive opinion on the "God Hypotheis":-

God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

God, The Failed Hypothesis; How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

Perhaps an ambitious attempt, but it has it's merrits.

edit on 11/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Ok, so why are you agruing your belielf and not the topic the OP presented? I geuss ill go look at this book some time amazon didn't help to much.

reply to post by Doublemint


Which is it?

Is it this?

still you haven't answered why do you not believe in a diety that exsit.

Or this?

Ok, so why are you agruing your belielf and not the topic the OP presented?

I'm sure my post was quite on topic, as i discussed my position from agnostic atheism, and explained individually why i am both "agnostic" and "atheist".

And essentially, it's because the burden of proof in regards to the "GOD" hypothesis has always been on the person proposing the "GOD" hypothesis; faith just doesn't cut it any more, and i don't think it's considered a virtue in an enlightened age, especially not in the scientific commmunity.

Madness, notify me if i'm derailing the intented OP discussion. Ta.

A&A

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
This is not a message of confrontation, merely a message of solidarity. Those who call themselves 'agnostic' seem to think it means something entirely different than the term 'atheist'. It's really a simple question of whether or not you believe in any deity. It's a binary function. If you don't believe in any deity, you're an atheist. If you believe in one or more deities you're either a theist or a deist (though that's more of a distinction on the type of deity).

Agnostics, just admit that you are agnostic atheists, just like the vast majority of other atheists out there. It'll help everyone out in the long run because you'll stop separating yourself from other atheists by pretending that they are somehow entirely different.

...well, they are different. Except for one thing. You so-called agnostics and we honest atheists don't believe in any deity. We share one thing in common, why don't we just admit it?

In the first paragraph of the op it says agnostics are atheists.

In the second it says agnostics are agnostics atheists.

In the the third it says agnostics are atheists.

Oh, and the tittle says agnostics are atheists.

So, I assumed the point of the op was trying to make was that agnostics are atheists since 75% is bigger than 25%, but maybe I am wrong. I would imagine that if the op did mean to talk about the 25% of the op it would have been edited.

Who, are you to say faith doesn't cut it anymore?

What do you think about this, the differnce between an agnostic and an agnostic atheist is that the agnostic has the ablity to search for its self will the agnostic atheist has to rely on other people to bring proof to them? search for a deity that is.

reply to post by Doublemint

Who, are you to say faith doesn't cut it anymore?

Who are you to say it does?

double.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Doublemint

 

Who, are you to say faith doesn't cut it anymore?

Who are you to say it does?

I don't I just don't make a positive claim about faith cutting it or not so the burden of proof is not with me but with you as you make a positive claim that faith doesn't cut it anymore.

reply to post by Doublemint


having faith is having answers before asking questions, before probing for more information.

I consider that a narrow-minded position to assume. I certainly don't consider it a virtue and i definetly have no shame in admitting so. I wouldn't call it a positive claim; just my opinion.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Doublemint

 

having faith is having answers before asking questions, before probing for more information.

I consider that a narrow-minded position to assume. I certainly don't consider it a virtue and i definetly have no shame in admitting so. I wouldn't call it a positive claim; just my opinion.

So, whats the differnce between a positive claim and just an opinion? Also why can't the person that believes in god just say its their opinion?

but you are right faith comes before questions.Thats why most religious people will have grown up religious, and those who are not reigious will have little exposure to it or rebell from it.

reply to post by Doublemint

Also why can't the person that believes in god just say its their opinion?

I'm sure many can, but some can't, some have to claim it has truth.... And that's always been the difference.

And that's how they've gained their followers for centuries, that's how they've kept the offering plates full; when Preists insist upon the word of God and the usefulness of the bible, people will be scared by such a universal dictator hypothesis, people will take the passages literally;

even if the bible and scriptures are cherry-picked, and some of the (considered) ethical and moral preaching is repeated it doesn't make religion as an "entity" a good thing society.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Doublemint

 

Also why can't the person that believes in god just say its their opinion?

I'm sure many can, but some can't, some have to claim it has truth.... And that's always been the difference.

And that's how they've gained their followers for centuries, that's how they've kept the offering plates full; when Preists insist upon the word of God and the usefulness of the bible, people will be scared by such a universal dictator hypothesis, people will take the passages literally;

even if the bible and scriptures are cherry-picked, and some of the (considered) ethical and moral preaching is repeated it doesn't make religion as an "entity" a good thing society.

Have you ever meet a person were their opion was that they believed in god but claim it as false? Thats as big as mistake as the atheist that believe in, not believeing in a diety that does exsit.

My thought on this is simple, they are indeed diffrent, through my experiences my friends and family have gone to agnostic as a sort of "im not sure" stance. I believe that agnostics are people that are leaning towards athiesm, but by no means are athiests. They are simply afraid to completely detach from religion and the easiest way to do this is to give a "I take no sides" stance.

They do believe something could be out there, they just dont understand or have faith in the concept... In other words, they find the idea hard to believe, but also hard to ignore.

Originally posted by MGSPhantom
My thought on this is simple, they are indeed different, through my experiences my friends and family have gone to agnostic as a sort of "I'm not sure" stance. I believe that agnostics are people that are leaning towards Atheism, but by no means are Atheists. They are simply afraid to completely detach from religion and the easiest way to do this is to give a "I take no sides" stance.

They do believe something could be out there, they just don't understand or have faith in the concept... In other words, they find the idea hard to believe, but also hard to ignore.

Nicely worded.

Most of us are assimilated from birth that there is a God - who Created everything.

It is difficult to step outside that circle - - to remove yourself from the concept of a God/Creator.