It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on May, 4 2011 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by Shamatt

Originally posted by Shamatt
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Mate, it is very simple. Yoiu can tell me I am wrong all you like, but that will not make me or anyone else wrong. I know you will stick dogedy to your point, fair enough, you go for it.

You are wrong...and it's been demonstrated. I'm not simply telling you, I'm showing you.

You say I have not offered a counter argument., I think I have, but I will summarise:

Let's see what you have.

There are 3 possible possions, not 2. Just because I do not beleive in a god does not make me an athiest.

Yes, it does. All 'atheist' means is a lack of belief in any deity. So you're just wrong there.

This has been explained to you by so many on this thread but you tell everyone who subscribes to this point of view that they are wrong. Just that, wrong, end of story.

Opposite position to theism
Theism = belief in a deity.
Atheism, being its opposite, means the lack of belief. The opposite of a belief is a lack of belief.

"I do not believe in any deity" means I am an atheist. I lack a belief.

I'm not saying that you're just wrong, I just showed why you're wrong.

You, however, are right in your novel new way of interpreting things. Lucky you! :O)

It's not novel or new.

An athiest does not beleive in spirits, magic, divination, holistic healing, clairvoyance etc. An agnostic might. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on this one. Benevolent Heretic (who has kindly enough posted in this thread) believes in the supernatural. She is an atheist. An atheist doesn't believe in deities. Theos is the root word here, it refers specifically to deities and not to the supernatural.

I personally happen to be an atheist, a-spiritist, a-magicist, a-divinist, a-holisticismist, a-clairvoancist, etc. But I'm an atheist separate of those other "a" positions. The more general term you are looking for is skeptic. A skeptic tends to not believe in those things.

You seem to be coming closer to the truth though, Terms like Agnostic Athiest.... Ummm are you starting to see that your initial premise was wrong but feeling too proud to make a climb down? Sounds like you might be.

Wow, that's some feces right there. I've always self-described as an agnostic least once I realized what the words meant...which was about the time I stopped being a Buddhist. Agnostic atheist, that's a position I've held for over 4 years now.

See, if we could agree the following sematic translations, I think you and I would agree wholeheartedly on this topic:

You Say....................I Say

Agnostic Athiest.........Agnostic

I can't agree to that oen because it's just incorrect. Agnostic describes nothing. You can be either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Atheist in and of itself is a half-description as there are those who would consider themselves to be gnostic atheists (at least hypothetically, I've yet to run into one).


I prefer "honestly mistaken".

Seem reasonable?
See much diference between us?

Yes, I care about the accuracy of terms.

I would add that these are only labels, however it is important we are able to label ourselves as we feel comfortable. I would call myself a spiritual agnostic - I think most people would understand this, even if it does not fit into your very strict defanitions. This is why I don't like strict definitions - they are restrictive.

You can be a spiritual atheist. Hell, you can be an atheist magician or wizard. You can be an atheist spiritual healer. All atheist means is no deity, it has nothing to do with the other spiritual claims. I can still believe in faeries (I don't happen to, but I could) as an atheist.

Is that really so hard for you to wrap your head around?

Open your mind and accept that there are traditional meanings behind these words which no amount of arguing on here will ever change.

I guess I'll just toss out all of the philosophical texts I have that are older than I am that use the same definitions I'm using.

Oh, and those meanings do change. Just saying.

Be humble enough to look at those old defanitions and say "you know what - that is reasonable" and perhaps start to use the language the same as everyone else.

They're unreasonable definitions. What about being an atheist precludes me from believing in minotaurs?

This would serve you well. These meanings have been arround a lot longer than you or I have.

Not really, they're just distorted public perceptions of the words. Learn to philosophy.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 04:04 AM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

If you don't believe in any deity, even if you are still undecided and deliberating, you are an atheist. Those who lack any active belief in any deity are atheists.

Really Madness does your arrogance have any limits on this topic?

What's arrogant about actually describing a word properly? And does your well-poisoning name-calling know any limits?

Now you want to speak for other peoples personal opinions based on your personal perspective.

It's not a personal perspective. Lack of belief in deities = atheism.

I find it interesting that you're not going to actually address the point I'm making.

I think enough posters have come into this thread to set you straight, yet you stubbornly and dogmatically continue to cling to your stated position. A position that is totally your own personal opinion on other peoples perspectives. So you arrogantly think you know how all agnostics think and feel.
This thread is just digging your unreasonable reputation even deeper, as some other posters have alluded too.

Keep digging buddy.

Big ol' personal attack. Classy.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 04:08 AM
reply to post by mbartelsm

Mental processes are actions. And you seem to be under the impression that homosexuality is equivalent to a belief...when it is a predisposition.

I cannot partially accept or deny a single claim. I can partially accept or deny a group of claims.

And I'm sorry I used the collective 'you' before, not the specific "mbartelsm" you...then I did use the non-collective you directly afterward. I apologize for the confusion, I didn't mean to offend or assume. I was merely stating that those who don't believe in any deity, and I, are atheists.

You are clearly a deist, as you do believe in any deity but pay it no heed beyond acknowledging that.
edit on 4/5/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 04:16 AM
reply to post by Buddha1098

Originally posted by Buddha1098
I'm not cow-towing to anyone, I don't label myself. I am.

"I" is a label...

I'm trying to understand i just don't. Science made my computer. Cool.. Science works. Yup.. scientific thinking works.. Sure.. Scientific method is required for me to validate my spiritual experiences.. Huh?

Well, is there any other way to validate reality other than the scientific method? Spiritual experiences like demonic possession, visions, and near death experiences have been shown to be scientifically explicable as other things.

I'm having a hard time following the logic there.

Well, that's not really my problem there.

Magnetism is a complex question that science cannot yet explain. How much more complex do you think the nature of god is vs magnetism? How about infinitely more complex.

How are you making that assumption? See, you're positing a single type of deity claim here. The nature of Zeus? Not all that complex. Odin? Same. Amaterasu? Pretty easy there. I'm an atheist to all deity claims, not just the infinitely complex deities.

Which is why I'd never say anyone else's beliefs are wrong. Because how would I know? I can disagree of course but I'll never know.

"Wrong" is referential to available evidence, not to overall reality claims here. A reality claim is 'wrong' in the sense that it is unjustifiable.

For an agnostic atheist you certainly don't act like one. If an omnipotent God tried to hide from you would you be able to find it? If you answer anything but no you are not using logic, if you answer yes then how can you be sure anyone else is wrong?

What? I'm sorry, but it depends on the omnipotent deity in question. Is it an omniscient deity as well? Being all-powerful doesn't necessarily mean that it's very good at using its powers.

And obviously an omniscient, omnipotent deity that's trying to hide from me is impossible to find...but a reality that features such a deity is indistinguishable from a reality that doesn't feature such a what's the point of even acknowledging that claim?

Sure, it's possible...that's why there's the 'agnostic' in 'agnostic atheist.' I cannot be entirely, epistemologically certain on the issue, but I can take the reasonable, skeptical position of not accepting a claim until there is evidence for a claim.

I don't see how I'm not acting like an agnostic atheist.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:41 AM
I guess 1 line responses to 1 single point of my post is something to be expect, no matter how annoying.

So let me direct it: Answer this one:

If a person says "I do not hold the belief in the existence of any deity, neither do I hold a belief that no deities exist. I contend that to know this information is impossible", would they be an atheist?

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:48 AM
reply to post by babloyi

Yes...because they are not believing in any deities. I am in that position. I do not hold that no deity exists, such a claim would be impossible as an omnipotent, omniscient being could easily evade me...but that does not give me good reason to accept the claim that such a being exists. What I'll call the "sneaky deity" problem from here on out because it makes me chuckle to refer to it as such prevents absolute certainty on such an issue.

...of course, you're still not believing. It's the absence of belief, not the presence of believing not, that makes one an atheist. Though those who believe not also happen to not believe, one must not necessarily believe not to not believe.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

It's not a personal perspective.

Sure it is.
Almost every poster in this thread has alluded to that in some way or another.
You always like to tell other people they are wrong, yet when the majority of intelligent ATS posters tell you that you are wrong and why. You still keep posting like a like a stubborn donkey. Very sad.

edit on 4-5-2011 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:13 AM
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Wow, you're not even addressing the argument. I'm telling people that their objections are wrong and I'm providing an explanation, you're simply calling me names. point in really getting into it with you. An atheist is merely an individual who is not engaged in the belief of any deity.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:21 AM
To put it in modern scientific terms an atheist has no belief in modern science or quantuum mechanics with its many worlds theory(if there exists an infinite number of worlds, how could they all be empty?...). Prophecies and all other supernormal phenomena are actually just manifestations of people of a certain inborn or cultivated ability that uses the other worldsperspective to see our dimension from a higher dimension with their time-space:

"The many-worlds interpretation is a postulate of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse, which implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real."

"In many-worlds, the subjective appearance of wavefunction collapse is explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence. By decoherence, many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[7][8] and Schrödinger's cat,[1] since every possible outcome of every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world". In layman's terms, there is a very large—perhaps infinite[9]—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but didn't, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes."

Just like people who believe in evolution(usually these people are "atheists") have no belief or idea of the troubles of evolution and mathematics:

To set a better example, let us take up the evolutionist's burden of evidence to see where it leads. Our first observation is that apparently all functions in a living organism are based largely upon the structures of its proteins. The trail of the first cell therefore leads us to the microbiological geometry of amino acids and a search for the probability of creating a protein by mindless chance as specified by evolution. Hubert Yockey published a monograph on the microbiology, information theory, and mathematics necessary to accomplish that feat. Accordingly, the probability of evolving one molecule of iso-1-cytochrome c, a small protein common in plants and animals, is an astounding one chance in 2.3 times ten billion vigintillion. The magnitude of this impossibility may be appreciated by realizing that ten billion vigintillion is one followed by 75 zeros. Or to put it in evolutionary terms, if a random mutation is provided every second from the alleged birth of the universe, then to date that protein molecule would be only 43% of the way to completion. Yockey concluded, "The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual motion machine is impossible in probability."7

Richard Dawkins implicitly agreed with Yockey by stating, "Suppose we want to suggest, for instance, that life began when both DNA and its protein-based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one."8The 100 billion billion is 1020. So Dawkins' own criterion for impossible in probability, one chance in more than 1020, has been exceeded by 50 orders of magnitude for only one molecule of one small protein. Now that Professor Dawkins has joined the ranks of non-believers in evolution, politesse forbids inquiring whether he considers himself "ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked."

Let us proceed to criteria more stringent. For example, Borel stated that phenomena with very small probabilities do not occur. He settled arbitrarily on the probability of one chance in 1050 as that small probability. Again according to this more stringent criterion, we see that evolving one molecule of one protein would not occur by a wide margin, this time 25 orders of magnitude.9

Let us go further. According to Dembski, Borel did not adequately distinguish those highly improbable events properly attributed to chance from those properly attributed to something else and Borel did not clarify what concrete numerical values correspond to small probabilities. So Dembski repaired those deficiencies and formulated a criterion so stringent that it jolts the mind. He estimated 1080 elementary particles in the universe and asked how many times per second an event could occur. He found 1045. He then calculated the number of seconds from the beginning of the universe to the present and for good measure multiplied by one billion for 1025 seconds in all. He thereby obtained 1080 x 1045 x 1025 = 10150 for his Law of Small Probability.9

I have not been able to find a criterion more stringent than Dembski's one chance in 10150. Anything as rare as that probability had absolutely no possibility of happening by chance at any time by any conceivable specifying agent by any conceivable process throughout all of cosmic history. And if the specified event is not a regularity, as the origin of life is not, and if it is not chance, as Dembski's criterion and Yockey's probability may prove it is not, then it must have happened by design, the only remaining possibility.

Now to return to the probability of evolving one molecule of one protein as one chance in 1075, we see that it does not satisfy Dembski's criterion of one chance in 10150. The simultaneous availability of two molecules of one protein may satisfy the criterion, but they would be far from the necessary complement to create a living cell. For a minimal cell, 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations would be needed.5,10 If these raw materials could be evolved at the same time, and if they were not more complex on average to evolve than the iso-1-cytochrome c molecule, and if these proteins were stacked at the cell's construction site, then we may make a gross underestimation of what the chances would be to evolve that first cell. That probability is one chance in more than 104,478,296, a number that numbs the mind because it has 4,478,296 zeros. If we consider one chance in 10150 as the standard for impossible, then the evolution of the first cell is more than 104,478,146 times more impossible in probability than that standard.

Reproduction may be called a regularity because billions of people have witnessed billions of new individuals arising that way, and in no other way, for thousands of years. The origin of life was a unique event and certainly not a regularity. Therefore, according to mathematical logicians, the only possibilities left are that life either was generated by chance or by deliberate design. The standard for impossible events eliminated evolution so the only remaining possibility is that life was designed into existence. The probability of the correctness of this conclusion is the inverse of the probability that eliminated evolution, that is, 104,478,296 chances to one.

Although the certainty of design has been demonstrated beyond doubt, science cannot identify the designer. Given a designer with the intelligence to construct a cell and all life forms, it is not logical that he would construct only one cell and leave the rest to chance. The only logical possibility is that the designer would design and build the entire structure, the entire biosphere, to specified perfection. That seems to be as far as science can go.

Life was designed. It did not evolve. The certainty of these conclusions is 104,478,296 (1 followed by 4,478,296 zeros) to one. This evidence suggests a Designer who designed and built the entire biosphere and, for it to function, the entire universe. Primary and secondary sources from history properly provide additional information on the Designer because the biological sciences are not equal to that task.

Whether people call themselves agnostics or atheists is uninteresting to me. What really interests me is if disbelieving people can change their mind over the next few years and believe in higher dimensional beings that actually rule mankind like nothing - in religion they are called Gods, Buddhas and Daos. I would bet on "agnostics" in general being more openminded than "atheists".

In another sense the world is rigged so that there is Yin and Yang, some people are bound to deny anything outside the scope of their flesh eyes vision. Is it not so that a human being sucks up the good parts of his food and then wastes the bad parts as faeces? Isn´t that similar to what the ultimate being that personifies the Cosmos will do this time according to prophecy? Keep the good people and waste the bad people.

That is a natural process and bad people can not be allowed to contaminate the new cosmos forever.

Many of the prophecies will in a certain sense come true with all the natural disasters lining up before the very end of times as we know them. When this happens it will be interesting to see how people act and who can make the right decisions.

Let´s hope many people come to their senses and realize that they can change their own fate by just welcoming change and the highest law of this cosmos(Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance - the very essence of Falun Dafa) when it arrives into this dimension.

Just my two cents at my current wisdom level, no truth offered whatsoever.

/Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance is good, Falun Dafa is good

edit on 4-5-2011 by Gaussq because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:34 AM

Sure, it's possible...that's why there's the 'agnostic' in 'agnostic atheist.' I cannot be entirely, epistemologically certain on the issue, but I can take the reasonable, skeptical position of not accepting a claim until there is evidence for a claim.

If you believe that then your skeptical position is just a belief system and one with no more weight behind it than my experiential one. I know that spiritual experiences have been recreated in the lab. That doesn't mean that MY spiritual experience has a scientific reason. Again I do not KNOW so I remain agnostic. The difference between you and me is I don't claim to be right about things I cannot know.

I realize I feed my ego every time I have a debate on ATS. This discussion really isn't worth it for me so I'm going to bow out. Have a great day.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by Arkady

than an agnostic is a pagan...pagan is a belief in more than one god or that everything has its own god.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 03:58 PM

I though we were over etymology to define words, etymology is used for the origin of words not for their current meaning, here, I'll help you (again)

These are the definitions for the following words:
Atheist: someone who denies the existence of god
Agnostic: someone who is doubtful or non-committal about something
Theist: One who believes in the existence of a god or gods

As you can see, Agnosticism isn't against atheism nor theism, a theist may be an agnostic, so can an atheist, they just have to be in doubt. And atheist is not someone who doesn't believe, is someone who DENIES.
edit on 4/5/2011 by mbartelsm because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by Gaussq

Hey look, a massive off-topic post.

Atheists do not believe in deities. And you clearly don't understand modern science. Many worlds is not supported by anything at this point, it's merely a possibility. I mean, that's just a start.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by Buddha1098

I'm just going to keep this short because I have a long day ahead of me tomorrow. Lack of belief. It is not a belief system. It is a rejection of a claim. Rejecting something isn't a belief, a belief is a positive claim. My skepticism is not a belief system, it is merely a conclusion based on the failures of the claimants.

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by mbartelsm

So you just quoted a full post to ignore it? I'm sorry, but your definitions are merely wrong.

Atheism, without deity(ies). This doesn't require the positive assertion that no deities exist. For instance, I have no way of knowing whether or not Thor exists, for all I know he could very well exist. I do not, however, have a justification for claiming to believe aforementioned deity exists. Therefore...I do not believe. I do not make the positive claim that Thor does not or cannot exist, but I also do not accept the claim that he does.

Why yes, I did just get back from watching a movie, how did you know?

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mbartelsm

So you just quoted a full post to ignore it? I'm sorry, but your definitions are merely wrong.

Atheism, without deity(ies). This doesn't require the positive assertion that no deities exist. For instance, I have no way of knowing whether or not Thor exists, for all I know he could very well exist. I do not, however, have a justification for claiming to believe aforementioned deity exists. Therefore...I do not believe. I do not make the positive claim that Thor does not or cannot exist, but I also do not accept the claim that he does.

Why yes, I did just get back from watching a movie, how did you know?

I'm sorry, but until I see a source about your definition, I'm going to have to assume that all you say is pure assumption, because the definitions I posted are Dictionary definitions, and as far as I know, the dictionary has the true definition of words

Also, sorry about the long quote, but I did read it all and all you said can be disproven by posting the definition of the word "Agnostic"
edit on 4/5/2011 by mbartelsm because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:37 PM
I wish it was so cut and dry. Agnostics just basically believe in some sort of metaphysical being while not engaging a god they feel they, along with anyone else, knows. I am an atheist and even I can see the difference. I believe in no afterlife or deities. I do however feel that ghosts and such are manifestation to be taken seriously, along with the U.F.O. phenomenon.

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 08:09 AM
This whole silly thread is ballanced upon the preposition that the English word Athiest sould be understood litterally - as is A-theist.

Like we do with so many other words in our language! LOL

So in theory, reading the word this way, the OP could be right - but sadly he is not. Althought that does not stop him from telling everyone else who IS actually roght that they are wrong! WRONG!!!! Not "I dissagree" or "I think something different" or "Have youthought of it this way"... Just YOU ARE WRONG!

OK, se we are all wrong because OP wants to stick to the litteral meaning of words. Cool (Ooops, not in cold of course, cool as in "that is acceptable")

So lets sum up (Ooops, I don't mean up in the litteral sence as in the motion upwards, or to do anny addition..... I mean, you know, summarise) If we stick to (Ooops, not as in attach, as in agree to use) the litteral meaning of the word then we can possibly agree that there may be a shred of truth in his premis.

And that is the whole point (Not sharp.... I mean topic) of this thread, would you beleive it?

Word of advice mate. Stop taking word litterally. Ther is a whole wedge of human interaction you will miss if you continue to do this.

I will be a happy agnostic hippy spirituallist shamanic hypnotists - now, where is my label maker?

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:49 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on May, 5 2011 @ 11:41 AM

Originally posted by babloyi
I guess 1 line responses to 1 single point of my post is something to be expect, no matter how annoying.

So let me direct it: Answer this one:

If a person says "I do not hold the belief in the existence of any deity, neither do I hold a belief that no deities exist. I contend that to know this information is impossible", would they be an atheist?

They'd be any Atheist to anyone who claims to KNOW there is a God because they can't say for sure either way. As you don't know, you don't believe positive claims. I don't believe there's a teapot on pluto. I don't believe infinity.

To say "i don't know" is to admit that there is no evidence for a belief in the claim.
edit on 5/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in