posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:59 AM
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
Originally posted by tomten
reply to post by TrueBlood
As an Atheists, you have your options open.
I am an Atheist.
I don't have any view of any established religion.
If you already made up your mind, that there is no god or diety.
Then you are an Agnostic.
I think you have this backwards. If you don't believe in a god, you are an Athiest. If you choose to have your options open, you're Agnostic. Right?
Yes, they have the two backwards.
Some atheists will argue with you until they're blue in the face about "disbelief" versus "lack of belief", but if one equates "lack of belief"
with atheism, then there is no such thing as agnosticism, which there obviously is. Someone who insists that they have a "lack of belief", but they
don't "disbelieve in God", they are an agnostic, not an atheist.
(Which invariably results in claims of "Agnostic Atheism" and "Gnostic Atheism" and other terminology, all born out of the point that atheists
make a non-neutral claim, while agnostics only make neutral claims.)
And there has to be a theism before there can be atheism. Atheism is the rejection of the divine, that is a personal worldview, but it does mean that
there is no divine, only the rejection of it. And for someone to reject something, it has to exist to be rejected. There is no such thing as pure
atheism. Atheism is merely a worldview. But again, for them to reject God, then that means God has to exist in order to be rejected.
Atheism (from Greek: a + theos + ismos "not believing in god") refers in its broadest sense to a denial of theism
That does not say that God exists or not, merely the personal viewpoint of the atheist. There is no such thing as pure atheism, because denial is
still a part of reality.
One can be falsely accused of something, let's say a bank was robbed, a person is accused but denies it because he did not do it. That does not mean
the bank was not robbed, only the person did not do it. So let's suppose this, a person sitting at home one evening and the cops invade their home
because someone called the police and said the man had bombs. They made the story up, yes. But the threat of bombs is a reality and the threat was
assumed. Is the threat a fabrication or is the accusation a fabrication? Only the accusation is. There may have been no bombs, but the police knew
from experience the threat that was proven through real events prior to the false accusation.
Bombs are real, threats are real, so therefore, the police acted accordingly. Only the accusation was fabricated. His denial was toward the
accusation, not the real threat of real bombs. If the man said "bombs do not exist" and yet prior experience has proven it, then he is abomb, or
someone who denies bombs. Maybe only in his home bombs do not exist, however, the material for the bomb can be found.
Atheism is merely a denial by an individual, it does not mean there is no God, only he rejects it. But again, for something to be rejected, it has to
exist in the first place.