Atheist, deharmonizing the harmony of the spheres

page: 24
11
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Yes, otherwise how would I know you made that ridiculous claim?




posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 




And atheism didn't start until...200 years or so ago.


You are trying to claim that everyone believed in a god up until 200 years ago?

What?


What ridiculous claim?

Please read my posts before commenting, or you'll continue to make yourself look foolish.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by paradox
 




And atheism didn't start until...200 years or so ago.


You are trying to claim that everyone believed in a god up until 200 years ago?

What?


What ridiculous claim?

Please read my posts before commenting, or you'll continue to make yourself look foolish.



Did you forget what you typed?


And atheism didn't start until...200 years or so ago.



Same with atheists. They just started popping up, apparently


Who is foolish?



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


An agnostic is someone who believes you can not ever know for sure.

An atheist is someone who denies the claim based on the lack of evidence, and would change their position if proven wrong. However, that is never the case, as there is no proof, and never has been. Hence the denial in the existence of a deity.


Agnostics don't necessarily have to believe that you can't ever know. There's always a chance that science will answer the question some day. Agnostics simply admit that they don't know the answer. It's pretty much the only logical position. Atheists don't have to deny the entire concept of god, it is sometimes limited to certain versions of god. I'm sure most people here are atheists when it comes to believing in Zeus. It's not even a belief, it's lack of a belief. If you want to define somebody ask them what they DO believe. To make a long story short atheists and agnostics are pretty much the same thing, although there are the really rare extreme atheists that believe god is absolutely false and nothing will ever change their mind, even god appearing before him.
edit on 24-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Agnostics don't necessarily have to believe that you can't ever know. There's always a chance that science will answer the question some day. Agnostics simply admit that they don't know the answer. It's pretty much the only logical position.


If I could give you applause, I would.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs


Agnostics don't necessarily have to believe that you can't ever know. There's always a chance that science will answer the question some day.


I am going by the definition as given by mirriam webster.


1ag·nos·tic
noun ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god


Okay, so "probably" unknowable.
Pretty much exactly what I said.


Agnostics simply admit that they don't know the answer. It's pretty much the only logical position. Atheists don't have to deny the entire concept of god, it is sometimes limited to certain versions of god.


The only logical position, is to accept a claim when given proof of its existence.
Atheists disbelieve the claim that god exists, based on the lack of evidence to support the claim that "god exists".

I could write a book telling everyone that a pink unicorn with fairy wings and chocolate pants that controls the universe landed in my back yard and had a conversation with me, that it is true, and that you have to believe me or you will burn for ever in hell. Would it be logical to accept it at face value after 1500 years of no proof, the fact that is completely ridiculous/illogical, and it defies the laws of nature that science has evidence to support, OR to deny it based on lack of evidence, and only accept it if given proof that it ever happened, or that the pink unicorn even exists?


I'm sure most people here are atheists when it comes to believing in Zeus.


Right, which is yet another reason religion is hypocritical and illogical. Anyone can create their own "god" and give this "god" their own rules to live by, and then justify their actions based on the rules of this "god" that they created.


To make a long story short atheists and agnostics are pretty much the same thing


ETA: Actually, I disagree with this.
Agnostics give credence to the theory of "god"

Atheists do not, until given evidence to support it.

If given ANY evidence, although not absolute proof, I believe it's possible for an atheist to turn agnostic.
But this would have to be objective evidence.
edit on 4-24-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Barcs
 



Agnostics don't necessarily have to believe that you can't ever know. There's always a chance that science will answer the question some day. Agnostics simply admit that they don't know the answer. It's pretty much the only logical position.


If I could give you applause, I would.


Well, you can't, so do you have anything useful to add to this thread?



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Dictionaries are still influenced by opinion - - but they are catching up to reality.

REAL MEANING OF AGNOSTICISM


Agnosticism: The Basis for AtheismText
What is Agnosticism?
Agnosticism is a recent concept, introduced by Thomas Huxley, the famous friend and advocate of Darwin, to describe his own concerns about knowledge and belief. It is derived from the Greek roots a- for 'no' or 'without' and gnosis for 'knowledge.' Dictionary definitions, which are often worse than useless, tend to depict it as the position that certain things, like god(s), are unknown or ultimately unknowable; in common usage it is a third religious position between Atheism or Theism. The Oxford World Encyclopedia goes so far as to declare that it is a \reasoned basis for the rejection of both Christianity and Atheism\. [3]

However, neither dictionaries nor common usage reflect Huxley's intent in coining the term. His original formulation of the concept goes as follows:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.

Agnosticism, then, is not a branch of religion but of epistemology, the philosophy of knowledge: what is it possible to say that we know with some acceptable degree of certainty, and how do we know that we know it? More accurately, it is a method in regard to knowledge, a method for separating out what we can justifiably say we know from what we cannot justifiably say we know. atheists.org...



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by DaRAGE
 

an Agnostic is not one who denies, they are an individual who waits for proof...

btw:



How hard is it to get it through your skull. She's an atheist not an agnostic. How many times do I have to tell you?

SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. SHE BELIEVES THAT WHEN WE DIE, THAT IS IT! NO HEAVEN. NO HELL. NO GOD. NO SOULS.

ATHEIST!

The fact that you keep trying to alter what I say, and am telling you, really REALLY says something about you.

I cant believe I'm writing this crap to you. Cant even remember what I originally posted now that you've strayed FAR off topic questioning my sister being an Atheist and the definition of Atheist. What was the whole point of doing that?
edit on 25-4-2012 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaRAGE

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by DaRAGE
 

an Agnostic is not one who denies, they are an individual who waits for proof...

btw:



How hard is it to get it through your skull. She's an atheist not an agnostic. How many times do I have to tell you?
thank you but I was trying to define for you that an agnostic is not an atheist and to blend the two is rather odd... Agnostics are cool individuals imo



SHE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. SHE BELIEVES THAT WHEN WE DIE, THAT IS IT! NO HEAVEN. NO HELL. NO GOD. NO SOULS.
man you don't have to yell... seeing red much? but at any rate I do agree an atheist is a denier (of a persistent variety)


ATHEIST!

The fact that you keep trying to alter what I say, and am telling you, really REALLY says something about you.

I cant believe I'm writing this crap to you. Cant even remember what I originally posted now that you've strayed FAR off topic questioning my sister being an Atheist and the definition of Atheist. What was the whole point of doing that?
I am not altering anything, you are doing that for yourself... specially when you try to mix the two (agnostics and atheists) there are two definitions for a reason. Agnostic's usually do not acknowledge at all, for they are not seeking truth or someones version of it.

you do not have to reply to me on this topic any longer, I am only being honorable by not bailing completely from this thread since I started the rant.

individuals should be sure of themselves or their stance in my opinion also, that is why it just humors me to hear someone state they are an agnostic-atheist... then again that's just me.

Mods may remove or close this at any time... thanks


edit on 25-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by paradox
ETA: Actually, I disagree with this.
Agnostics give credence to the theory of "god"

Atheists do not, until given evidence to support it.


Agnostics don't give any credence to the god hypothesis. They just admit they don't know answer, and don't make absolute statements like "god definitely exists" or "god doesn't exist". They say "I don't know" or "I don't care" if god exists. Agnostics and most atheists would believe if the evidence was there. Agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic. Maybe that's a better way to phrase it.
edit on 25-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by paradox
ETA: Actually, I disagree with this.
Agnostics give credence to the theory of "god"

Atheists do not, until given evidence to support it.


Agnostics don't give any credence to the god hypothesis. They just admit they don't know answer, and don't make absolute statements like "god definitely exists" or "god doesn't exist". Agnostics and most atheists would believe if the evidence was there. Agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic. Maybe that's a better way to phrase it.

I understand this myself... not that should be butting in to your reply to someone.

Agnostics are not active in their missionary acts like an atheist, in fact that is what defines an atheist... Dawkins is rather good in this respect like MIMS was in where he wasn't aggressive nor did he seem to use 'the Word/Bible' to do his bidding (a very hideous act imo)

though I am not hedonophobic because it would seem I am one too


-------------

eg; deriving pleasure from my rant and denying an atheist their pleasure, but my hedonism is 'Just'. An atheists pleasure is to inflict pain on theist... be it mentally or physically.

edit on 25-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Agnostics don't give any credence to the god hypothesis. They just admit they don't know answer, and don't make absolute statements like "god definitely exists" or "god doesn't exist". They say "I don't know" or "I don't care" if god exists. Agnostics and most atheists would believe if the evidence was there. Agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic. Maybe that's a better way to phrase it.


I don't agree with that. I don't think agnostics are automatically atheists. Some agnostics, such as myself, are still open to the idea of God existing if personal experience were to confirm this. A part of me even believes God might exist, just not in the way organised religion has portrayed God. The key factor for an agnostic when it comes to the issue of God is doubt; they are divided on whether or not God exists.

Theists believe that God exists. Atheists do not believe God exists. Agnostics do not know whether God exists and are divided on the issue.
edit on 25/4/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by Barcs
Agnostics don't give any credence to the god hypothesis. They just admit they don't know answer, and don't make absolute statements like "god definitely exists" or "god doesn't exist". They say "I don't know" or "I don't care" if god exists. Agnostics and most atheists would believe if the evidence was there. Agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic. Maybe that's a better way to phrase it.


I don't agree with that. I don't think agnostics are automatically atheists. Some agnostics, such as myself, are still open to the idea of God existing if personal experience were to confirm this. A part of me even believes God might exist, just not in the way organised religion has portrayed God. The key factor for an agnostic when it comes to the issue of God is doubt; they are divided on whether or not God exists.

Theists believe that God exists. Atheists do not believe God exists. Agnostics do not know whether God exists and are divided on the issue.
edit on 25/4/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)


the dictionary would not seem to support this but I do agree with you, that's why most Agnostics whose paths I've crossed I use the word "cool" to define them.

Islam and I believe Roman Catholicism surely defines agnostics as an atheist... that's one main difference in Protestant Christianity, they seem to live and let live in this respect... but an Atheist is very determined much like an Islamic fascist... again in my opinion and observations only.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   
personally I would love the Atheist to join with the Protestants in our attack on Roman Catholicism and the Pope


that pretty much defines how America got here and what we represent... we could use those determined minds in our quest too.




posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs


Agnostics don't give any credence to the god hypothesis.


I disagree. Their "I don't know" stance means they see it as a possibility for a creator, or that there is a possibility the bible is true. Believing that, also means believing that they think there is a possibility every other religion is true, which contradicts itself.

Atheists do not see this as a possibility at all.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
An atheists pleasure is to inflict pain on theist... be it mentally or physically.

edit on 25-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)


I would appreciate it if you would stop trolling and emotionally provoking those who choose to read and participate in this thread.

The only pleasure an Atheist gets is by using his/her brain to form logical conclusions.
Once again, you are the one creating multiple threads attacking the idea of Atheism.

This hypocrisy seems to be the norm of religious folk.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Agnostics and most atheists would believe if the evidence was there. Agnostics are atheists, but not all atheists are agnostic.


Atheist's know god can not be proven or dis-proven.

An honest legitimate atheist would not say 100% there is no god.

Therefore - - every honest legitimate atheist - - is also agnostic.

What each individual atheist believes is called: atheist philosophy.

If asked directly if god exists - - the answer could be from an individuals "atheist philosophy" - - "I personally do not believe a god exists - in any form. However - I can not say factually 100% - - because god can not be proven or dis-proven".
edit on 25-4-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Agnostics are atheists


Wrong. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. I used to be agnostic...my response to "do you believe in God?" was "I don't care about God. Last I knew, he hadn't stepped into my life since the day I was born. And if he really cared, I wouldn't even be here. So honestly, I am my own God, and I make my own difference."

I see things a little differently now, but agnostics are NOT atheist. Atheists say, "He definitely doesn't exist."

Agnostics simply don't know. And yes, there IS a difference.



posted on Apr, 25 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Barcs
 



Agnostics don't necessarily have to believe that you can't ever know. There's always a chance that science will answer the question some day. Agnostics simply admit that they don't know the answer. It's pretty much the only logical position.


If I could give you applause, I would.


Well, you can't, so do you have anything useful to add to this thread?


Yes. Bugger off with your attitude.

Come back when you feel like asking civilized questions.





top topics
 
11
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join