I am not an atheist by choice

a reply to: Annee

Being a visionary is great. But if you don't have the means or the knowledge to test your hypotheses, then you are just another philosopher. You aren't proving anything; just adding ideas to the mix.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

Why do you think there are only two sides to an argument? Dualism is a failed idea and as a student of science you should know that the universe very rarely works that way. There is a reason you cannot describe the universe in binary. Quantum computing makes a strong case for the yes, no, maybe paradigm, so I'd say that your yes/no argument is too constraining. It's more complicated than that.

Throwing science and quantum computing at the confusion of a definition seems a little over the top and kinda ineffectual.

Atheists are non-beleivers, they lack belief, as are agnostics.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

Why do you think there are only two sides to an argument? Dualism is a failed idea and as a student of science you should know that the universe very rarely works that way. There is a reason you cannot describe the universe in binary. Quantum computing makes a strong case for the yes, no, maybe paradigm, so I'd say that your yes/no argument is too constraining. It's more complicated than that.

Throwing science and quantum computing at the confusion of a definition seems a little over the top and kinda ineffectual.

Atheists are non-beleivers, they lack belief, as are agnostics.

Believers have reached the conclusion that there is a God. Atheists have reached the conclusion that there is no God. Agnostics have not reached the conclusion that there is or is not a God. Do you see the difference?

a reply to: Prezbo369

It's called an analogy. I was giving you a comparison to see where I am coming from on this argument. Disbelief is an act of thinking of an answer. I don't have an answer to the question of if god exists or not. It's not that I disbelieve, I just don't know.

Atheist/theist is too constraining and doesn't account for all possibilities. You say disbelief and not having an answer are the same thing, so clearly you don't know what it feels like to not have an answer to a question.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

Why do you think there are only two sides to an argument? Dualism is a failed idea and as a student of science you should know that the universe very rarely works that way. There is a reason you cannot describe the universe in binary. Quantum computing makes a strong case for the yes, no, maybe paradigm, so I'd say that your yes/no argument is too constraining. It's more complicated than that.

Throwing science and quantum computing at the confusion of a definition seems a little over the top and kinda ineffectual.

Atheists are non-beleivers, they lack belief, as are agnostics.

Believers have reached the conclusion that there is a God. Atheists have reached the conclusion that there is no God. Agnostics have not reached the conclusion that there is or is not a God. Do you see the difference?

You've created your own definition of atheism for that to make sense. Agnostics are not theists, and as such they lack belief in a god making them atheists by default.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

It's called an analogy. I was giving you a comparison to see where I am coming from on this argument. Disbelief is an act of thinking of an answer. I don't have an answer to the question of if god exists or not. It's not that I disbelieve, I just don't know.

Disbelief or the rejection of a claim is not itself a claim.

Atheist/theist is too constraining and doesn't account for all possibilities. You say disbelief and not having an answer are the same thing, so clearly you don't know what it feels like to not have an answer to a question.

Like I said, to disbelieve is not to make a claim to knowledge, it's merely the rejection of the claim to the existence of a god.

And that's all this issue is about, the claim of the existence of God's and your acceptance or rejection of that claim.

Anything else anyone wants to insert is completely separate.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

Why do you think there are only two sides to an argument? Dualism is a failed idea and as a student of science you should know that the universe very rarely works that way. There is a reason you cannot describe the universe in binary. Quantum computing makes a strong case for the yes, no, maybe paradigm, so I'd say that your yes/no argument is too constraining. It's more complicated than that.

Throwing science and quantum computing at the confusion of a definition seems a little over the top and kinda ineffectual.

Atheists are non-beleivers, they lack belief, as are agnostics.

Believers have reached the conclusion that there is a God. Atheists have reached the conclusion that there is no God. Agnostics have not reached the conclusion that there is or is not a God. Do you see the difference?

You've created your own definition of atheism for that to make sense. Agnostics are not theists, and as such they lack belief in a god making them atheists by default.

Clearly, that's your belief. Several of us here who are agnostics disagree. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

a reply to: Tangerine

That's how the word is defined and it can be shown to be so with a quick Google. Belief ain't got nothing to do with it...

One thing is for certain, atheists and agnostics cannot even define their own beliefs. You consider a proposition; you believe it or you don't. Agnosticism is weird fence sitting.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I call myself an atheist due to lack of faith, and thus belief, in a deity.

Of course, I could also call myself an agnostic because I don't claim to KNOW god doesn't exist, merely that I lack the faith to believe it is so.

The definitions of the two terms are rather loose.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
One thing is for certain, atheists and agnostics cannot even define their own beliefs. You consider a proposition; you believe it or you don't. Agnosticism is weird fence sitting.

in terms of succinctness, the chart of theism/atheism/agnosticism/gnosticism is the most effective visual representation and ideological divvying of the pie.

a reply to: TzarChasm


I think you're correct. But the whole pie is without any merit.

a reply to: TzarChasm

To be honest, I don't think god is defined enough to warrant belief or disbelief. I've heard so many different versions of god, some even gel with science without using the god of the gaps argument. To me, god needs to become more properly defined before we can determine belief or disbelief.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Prezbo369

Why do you think there are only two sides to an argument? Dualism is a failed idea and as a student of science you should know that the universe very rarely works that way. There is a reason you cannot describe the universe in binary. Quantum computing makes a strong case for the yes, no, maybe paradigm, so I'd say that your yes/no argument is too constraining. It's more complicated than that.

Throwing science and quantum computing at the confusion of a definition seems a little over the top and kinda ineffectual.

Atheists are non-beleivers, they lack belief, as are agnostics.

Believers have reached the conclusion that there is a God. Atheists have reached the conclusion that there is no God. Agnostics have not reached the conclusion that there is or is not a God. Do you see the difference?

Lacking belief in a god is not a conclusion that there is no god.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TzarChasm

To be honest, I don't think god is defined enough to warrant belief or disbelief. I've heard so many different versions of god, some even gel with science without using the god of the gaps argument. To me, god needs to become more properly defined before we can determine belief or disbelief.

We all know what people mean when they say 'god', you don't have to be 100% specific.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Agnostics are not theists, and as such they lack belief in a god making them atheists by default.

That is not true.

The basic meaning of agnostic is: you can not prove or disprove God. Ask the guy who created the word.

How you individualize, interpret any of these words is your own philosophy.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Agnostics are not theists, and as such they lack belief in a god making them atheists by default.

That is not true.

The basic meaning of agnostic is: you can not prove or disprove God. Ask the guy who created the word.

How you individualize, interpret any of these words is your own philosophy.

Agnostics are theists? I don't understand what your saying...

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Agnostics are not theists, and as such they lack belief in a god making them atheists by default.

That is not true.

The basic meaning of agnostic is: you can not prove or disprove God. Ask the guy who created the word.

How you individualize, interpret any of these words is your own philosophy.

Agnostics are theists? I don't understand what your saying...

There are many agnostics who DO believe that a higher force or intelligence exists, but that any such entity cannot be proven, nor disproven. Thus, they are agnostic theists.

And agnostic atheist believes that there is likely NO such entity, but cannot prove or disprove. Thus agnostic atheism.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Agnostics are not theists, and as such they lack belief in a god making them atheists by default.

That is not true.

The basic meaning of agnostic is: you can not prove or disprove God. Ask the guy who created the word.

How you individualize, interpret any of these words is your own philosophy.

Agnostics are theists? I don't understand what your saying...

There are many agnostics who DO believe that a higher force or intelligence exists, but that any such entity cannot be proven, nor disproven. Thus, they are agnostic theists.

And agnostic atheist believes that there is likely NO such entity, but cannot prove or disprove. Thus agnostic atheism.

No yeah you're right I get that, but in this context where people refer to themselves purely as agnostics rather than atheists despite not holding a belief in god, they couldn't possibly be called theists....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TzarChasm

To be honest, I don't think god is defined enough to warrant belief or disbelief. I've heard so many different versions of god, some even gel with science without using the god of the gaps argument. To me, god needs to become more properly defined before we can determine belief or disbelief.

definitions and cognitive dissonance are frenemies.