Dear "Atheists": You're Agnostics, get over it.

Most of those who call themselves Atheists have one thing in common: the need for proof, they think that if something has no proof of being right then it is not right, but they are also forgetting one thing, they have no proof god does NOT exist, and the absence of Evidence is a condition in which no valid conclusion can be inferred from the mere absence of detection, in other words, doubt.

According to this and the definition of agnostic: "Someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something" or "a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God" Atheists must accept that they are, in fact, Agnostics

You so-called Atheists and we honest agnostics don't really know if any deity actually exist. We share one thing in common, why don't we just admit it?

P.S.: I'm just stating a point which would interfere with the thread I was thinking on posting it, if this is, by any chance, breaking a rule, then I apologize.

Deja Vu.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Use the search button.

Even the titles are the same.

You really don't know the definition of Agnostic then, and I'm not going to educate you!

Atheists are quite different.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Deja Vu.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Use the search button.

Even the titles are the same.

edit on 5/6/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)

Read Closer

Originally posted by AnteBellum
You really don't know the definition of Agnostic then, and I'm not going to educate you!

Atheists are quite different.

I believe I quoted the definition of Agnostic in the OP, I'm just stating a point, If agnosticism is the same as atheism, then it has to work the other way around

Originally posted by mbartelsm

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Deja Vu.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Use the search button.

Even the titles are the same.

edit on 5/6/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)

Read Closer

Read what? The fact you just edited your post to make it fit?

reply to post by mbartelsm


I guess I have to explain anyway.

agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

atheist: someone who denies the existence of god.

I am agnostic, I do not DENY the existence of god.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by mbartelsm

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Deja Vu.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Use the search button.

Even the titles are the same.

edit on 5/6/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)

Read Closer

Read what? The fact you just edited your post to make it fit?

huh? the only edit were the last two lines

Originally posted by AnteBellum
reply to post by mbartelsm

 

I guess I have to explain anyway.

agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

atheist: someone who denies the existence of god.

I am agnostic, I do not DENY the existence of god.

I'm not saying you do, I'm saying that those who rely on proof are actually in doudt, thus being agnostics
Also, from the wordnet dictionary:
· someone who is doubtful or noncommittal about something
· of or pertaining to an agnostic or agnosticism
· a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)
· uncertain of all claims to knowledge

Originally posted by mbartelsm

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand

Originally posted by mbartelsm

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Deja Vu.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Use the search button.

Even the titles are the same.

edit on 5/6/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)

Read Closer

Read what? The fact you just edited your post to make it fit?

huh? the only edit were the last two lines

Nvm. Good luck with your thread. I'll step away before the poo starts flying!
...continue ladies and gentleman

reply to post by mbartelsm

I'm not saying you do, I'm saying that those who rely on proof are actually in doudt, thus being agnostics

Your right in that respect, some atheists think they are atheists, but they are actually not. Someone who is standing around waiting for proof is not an atheist - they are agnostic. (whether or not they believe they are)

A 'real' atheist denies that god exists completely, with or without proof!

I think the world has a plethora of pressing issues much more important than someones personal belief system when it comes to spirituality.

Originally posted by mbartelsm
Most of those who call themselves Atheists have one thing in common: the need for proof

The problem with your thread is that you are conveying the idea that all Atheists are Agnostic even though you express in your first word, "Most".

It is not possible to be both of these since as close as they seem in idea, they are completely different. One (Atheism) says you can't believe in God, the other (Agnosticism) says you can, but don't necessarily have to, but believe there is no way to prove the existence of God. I am the latter.

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
Deja Vu.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Use the search button.

Even the titles are the same.

edit on 5/6/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)

Actually the titles are different the words and Atheists and Agnostics are turned around...

I'm a Christian...we are all in the dark if faith is shunned. FAITH is not a cop-out....it's a deep down belief not based on evidence that we can be saved.

I have received 'some' evidence though faith but it all begins with faith....

Touche!

However, we aren't them, and thank God for that.

And we don't want anybody else to confuse them with us, lest they yet again false-flag their way through another insightful "I found a website which lists contradictions in the Bible" thread, and try to blame it on us.

So, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Key concepts

Tooth-fairy: lots of evidence, all of it against.

God: not so much evidence, not for, not against, not even about.

Practical application

Atheist: Didn't get the memo about the tooth-fairy, thinks tooth-fairy and God are equally credible. Congratulates self endlessly on evidentiary reasoning skills.

Agnostic: Tooth-fairy is toast, because there is plenty of evidence. God is open, because there isn't any evidence worth mentioning. In the meantime, has a life.

No. You're describing an agnostic, not an atheist. An atheist denies the existence of God, and it is perfectly rational to do so. An agnostic is either undecided or believes that one can't know whether or not God exists.

Here's my issue with that:

If I tell you that there's an animal called a "galalala" that has 19 legs and is invisible and speaks Russian and can make pizza better than people can, are you going to say "You know, there might be, but I have no evidence as to whether or not it exists, so I'm going to remain neutral on the matter?"

Do you refuse to take sides on whether or not Santa Clause, unicorns, or fairies exist?

If a proposed "thing" has absolutely no empirical or measurable effect on reality whatsoever, then it is the exact same thing as saying that it doesn't exist. In fact, the question of "does it exist?" then becomes completely irrelevant.

Can you see God? Feel God? Taste, smell, or hear God? Can you observe any effect that God has on anything else in reality? No. Thus, it is completely pointless and intellectually dishonest to argue that he might exist when he completely fails to meet any of the criteria of "existence" as a concept.

If you and I are on top of a skyscraper on the edge of the roof and I tell you that there is an invisible platform right over the edge that will support you and you won't fall to your death, are you REALLY going to argue with me that there's a 50% chance that it exists and that we can't know?

It is the burden of the person who makes the irrational claims to prove them, not the burden of the rational person to disprove them.

Originally posted by RavagedSky
Can you see God? Feel God? Taste, smell, or hear God? Can you observe any effect that God has on anything else in reality? No. Thus, it is completely pointless and intellectually dishonest to argue that he might exist when he completely fails to meet any of the criteria of "existence" as a concept.

The problem is with your perception of god.
We all perceive it in different ways some spiritually, physically, ethereally, multi-dimensionally and some not.
Your point is valid but you are arguing a different topic, "What do you think god is?"
Once you yourself answer this, then you can place yourself in the corresponding group of association.

reply to post by mbartelsm


So...you're going to be childish and drag the discussion away from where you're merely saying "look at the dictionary!' instead of actually bothering to reply to my points...oh, and you're posting this thread because my thread actually bothers to provide the arguments that dismantle your case.

Useless thread.

I'm not an agnostic, I am an atheist. There IS a difference. I don't need to have proof to believe in something, I just use common sense.

For example, I believe in intelligent life in this universe aside from our own, despite there being no solid proof. Why? It's simple. Common sense. Think about the size of the universe, and then tell yourself that we are the only planet with intelligent life. The idea we are alone is absurd, and borderline psychotic.

Now, in my OPINION, the idea of some kind of magical deity ruling and controlling everything in the universe is also absurd, and borderline psychotic.

God was invented to keep unruly peasants in check.