What is your religion/belief?

[Vilham]

I honestly thought,

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity, and agnostic because they do not claim to know with certainty whether any deity exists.

Was quite clear.

In fact that might fit me better, some sort of cross between purer Agnostic views and Atheistic views.


Here is Wikipedias description of Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

The problem is that the agnostic atheists definition of atheist is not the definition of atheist. The actual definition is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deity, significantly different from merely not holding a belief.

Considering existence is binary, you either exist or don't; rejection of existence means you don't believe it exists. Not that you can't prove it.

I can best sum up the two positions with:

Atheists reject the existence of god.
Agnostics reject the ability to know the existence of god.

QED they are incompatible. You can not know and not know.

[Dionysos]

An interesting question would be if logic could disprove god. For instance, the ancient joke whether god could make a burrito so hot that he himself couldn't eat it, or variations thereof. People dismiss it quickly as a joke, but it shows the problems an omnipotent AND omniscient being would have, which is THE main characteristic of (a) god in the general meaning of the word.

Omniscience: God knows everything. That includes the future. However god can also do anything he wants (omnipotent). So he knows exactly what he is going to do, which collides massively with his (or hers, har har) free will. If he changed his mind about something, he would already know that. In fact, he could never ever change his mind, because he already knows everything he will ever think... rendering his free will more or less academic.

Just one example of how a god like this, mildly speaking, doesn't really agree with logic.

[Ashfall_2008]

What about if you don't give a crap whether he exists or not?
Is there an ism for that?

[Vilham]

Dionysos don't every try to have that debate with a Christian, I have had it a few times with one of my best mates from uni and he simply doesn't understand the logic as it contradicts what he has been taught in the bible. This is a very clever guy as well, which makes it exasperating.

No idea but it should be called apatheism if doesn't exist. Basically right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism

[Plague]

An interesting question would be if logic could disprove god. For instance, the ancient joke whether god could make a burrito so hot that he himself couldn't eat it, or variations thereof. People dismiss it quickly as a joke, but it shows the problems an omnipotent AND omniscient being would have, which is THE main characteristic of (a) god in the general meaning of the word.

Omniscience: God knows everything. That includes the future. However god can also do anything he wants (omnipotent). So he knows exactly what he is going to do, which collides massively with his (or hers, har har) free will. If he changed his mind about something, he would already know that. In fact, he could never ever change his mind, because he already knows everything he will ever think... rendering his free will more or less academic.

Just one example of how a god like this, mildly speaking, doesn't really agree with logic.

Could god not have just created time and the universe?
Could he not be some sort of exception?

Again, God disproves everything yet is impossible to prove his existence.

[stoopdapoop]

Vilham, I feel that you logic wears thinner with every post. Soon I won't even be able to follow. This combined with the fact that you're starting to cherrypick my posts pretty hard makes think I'll make this my last post on the subject. You can rebut and have the last word.

But here we go.

"Believe without proof is illogical, true and false are absolutes, if you claim to believe something you are applying a truth to it."

This is crossing too far into philosophy for my liking, but I don't think that too many people who've really thought about it consider truth to be absolute. There are different Criterias of truth (this is a good read)

Here you have entirely missed it.

Atheists have some form of certainty that there is no god, they have to, otherwise their own belief is illogical.
Agnostics say you can not have any certainty in god as their is no proof, anything else is illogical.

Ok, you're ignoring a lot. Check this out. Agnosticism has a larger span of views than you appear to be willing to acknowledge.

As to this statement, that's my entire point. Believe without evidence is illogical.

That's sorta irrelevant, most people who have a belief (I can't think of any exceptions, but there might be some) have some reason to believe what they believe. Some reasons are a lot stronger than others, but the logic is there, even if it's faulty or weak.

You can not claim a truth without evidence.

Similar to my above point, anyone who makes an existential claim has some sort of evidence.

O and no need to get rude or condescending, when in fact I am your senior by quite a few years. It's the sign of a poor debater.

Sorry, I'm just not a big fan of the arrogance required to say that all other stances but your own are illogical, regardless of reasoning. Then having you deny that my belief can even exist and be logically consistent (when it is, according to every definition available). But congrats on being older than me, I guess.

Agnostic, as any other option in my opinion is illogical.

(From your first post)

Now it's really time for me to work on my homework

[MayheM]

Looking back at a few of these posts and then re-reading the original one, and seeing the part about "People in this days society tend to hateful against "atheists" ", I see that seems to be a bit off. I see that several people who do not believe in God live in areas of the country/world where it is not the "normal" to be an atheist. In many other arenas, such as the internet it is obvious that the majority are Atheist. Look at how they change a "Christmas tree" into a "holiday tree", or how the pledge of allegiance was removed from schools because it was said to be a prayer since it contained the words "Under God". Ironically the same people who voted for that have no issues spending the money with "In God We Trust" on it. My point is somewhere along the line in the attempt to not offend people who do not believe in God, it became okay to offend those who do.

Imagine it this way. If everyone was offered cupcakes and 75% of the people took them. However, the other 25% said they did not want them. Would it be fair to take the cupcakes away from the 75% so they did not offend the 25% by eating the cupcakes in front of them?

Looking at the poll, and seeing the way some atheists have posted about those who believe in a higher power I can not help to feel the opposite of the statement I quoted is true. It bothers me how some people feel it is okay to be so disrespectful of others beliefs. Yet I have not seen the same kind of reaction from the people of faith. I will draw no conclusion from that, but I will say it is interesting. I do want to thank those of you who have varying beliefs who are in fact keeping it respectful.

I also want to say of Spike's comment on he feels he is normal for being an atheist. Simply put, the majority of the world believes in some form of higher power. Being the definition of Normal is as follows...
Normal: conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
The standard type would be to believe in God or a higher power, thus making you on the other side. Call yourself what you want be remember, religion is not who you are or even what you are, it is what you believe.

[stoopdapoop]

you bring up some valid points/questions Mayhem.
And for the most part, I haven't felt very persecuted as an atheist, but according to several studies, atheists are the most hated and distrusted group in America, even more so than Gays or Muslims

[Ashfall_2008]

It bothers me how some people feel it is okay to be so disrespectful of others beliefs. Yet I have not seen the same kind of reaction from the people of faith. I will draw no conclusion from that, but I will say it is interesting. I do want to thank those of you who have varying beliefs who are in fact keeping it respectful.

I respect other's rights to believe whatever they wish. I'll fight and die for their right to do so in a free society. However it works both ways. I have the right to believe their thoughts are foolish and misguided and I reserve the right to state my point of view that all organised religion is a bad bad thing and unwarrented in this day and age. If others find that hurtful or offensive then I'm afraid that's freedom of speech for you.

With regarding proving or disproving the existence of god... the whole debate is rendered pointless by looking at our global history. By exploring the origins of religion we find that there was no basis for the belief in the first place save what mankind conjoured up in their minds...

Given that the new testament of the Christian bible was written hundreds of years after the events actuallyt took place by people who wern't there, it's amazing that some people are willing to take that huge logical gamble that the bible is fact and that Jesus was more than just a particuarly groovy dude.

Despite my feeling towards organised religion the christian new testament is a bloody good read! And the old for that matter although I prefer it condensed down to a movie version... say 10 Commandments or The Prince Of Egypt!

[kkirspel]

I also want to say of Spike's comment on he feels he is normal for being an atheist.
(...)The standard type would be to believe in God or a higher power, thus making you on the other side. Call yourself what you want be remember, religion is not who you are or even what you are, it is what you believe.

Atheism shouldn't be on that list, since atheism is just the default position when you're born. It's not a way to belive.

I took it to mean that when you're born, you know of no God or higher being, and are taught to accept religion as you progress. Therefore, the way you start out, aka "normal", is believing in no God, or Atheistism. That's just how I understood it.

It's the evolution of the species to cast religion aside and ascend to a more enlightened way of life.

lol you kinda sound like Dr. Breen in the speech he gives outside the trainstation.
...not saying you're wrong or anything, though; I pretty much agree.

[cheesemoo0]

I find it surprising how many people are atheist on this forum. I rarely meet other atheists in real life.

[MayheM]

you bring up some valid points/questions Mayhem.
And for the most part, I haven't felt very persecuted as an atheist, but according to several studies, atheists are the most hated and distrusted group in America, even more so than Gays or Muslims

I fear some of that may be self inflicted. The rest is just ignorance and intolerance. The self inflicted part being the push to remove God from everything like I stated above. The ignorance and intolerance being the fact some people think that without religion guiding you a person can not have a moral compass. That is simply untrue.

This is why I choose to look beyond labels and see who a person really is. I have many friends that I strongly disagree with on most issues, but we can talk about those issues civilly because there is a mutual respect for each others view point. The biggest problem in this word is not that some believe while others do not, or that people disagree. We can not control how other people feel about certain things, what we can control is the way we treat them fro being different, or thinking differently. Respect is rewarded by respect, at least it should be. We can all reap the benefits from a world where we all respect each other even if we disagree...

[Vilham]

Vilham, I feel that you logic wears thinner with every post. Soon I won't even be able to follow. This combined with the fact that you're starting to cherrypick my posts pretty hard makes think I'll make this my last post on the subject. You can rebut and have the last word.

Dunno where you are getting me cherry picking your posts, first even if I was that is the point of debate. Secondly Ive been consistent with reinforcing my point when you make statements that attempt to disprove them.

This is crossing too far into philosophy for my liking, but I don't think that too many people who've really thought about it consider truth to be absolute. There are different Criterias of truth (this is a good read)

Philosophy and religion are intrinsically linked so you might be in the wrong debate if you don't want to debate both.

"such as the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality" is the primary definition of truth. Note the reliance on fact or reality. Truth in the context of this argument happens to be an absolute.

Ok, you're ignoring a lot. Check this out. Agnosticism has a larger span of views than you appear to be willing to acknowledge.

As previously pointed out at least one of them is nonsense as it doesn't fit with either of the primary definitions of atheist or agnostic.

That's sorta irrelevant, most people who have a belief (I can't think of any exceptions, but there might be some) have some reason to believe what they believe. Some reasons are a lot stronger than others, but the logic is there, even if it's faulty or weak.

Not irrelevant at all:

I'm pained that I need to help you with the term belief, but here. While believing is possible without warrant or evidence, certainty implies having valid evidence or proof.

As this comment you made earlier is flat out wrong. Belief requires truth which in turn requires state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality.

Faulty or weak logic is not a good thing and often is based on counter intuitive or non existent evidence like most religions rely on.

Sorry, I'm just not a big fan of the arrogance required to say that all other stances but your own are illogical, regardless of reasoning. Then having you deny that my belief can even exist and be logically consistent (when it is, according to every definition available). But congrats on being older than me, I guess.

Ironic that claiming to know if god doesn't or does exist is pretty much the epitome of arrogance. Pretty much the main part of the argument, you can not know if god exists, therefore any other course is illogical.

Also congrats on continue to be condescending and getting angry at an opinion that has no effect on you.

Agnostic, as any other option in my opinion is illogical.

[Ashfall_2008]

I find it surprising how many people are atheist on this forum. I rarely meet other atheists in real life.

Come to London... You'll meet millions...

Only 2 of my work colleages are Christians... and they are thought of as a bit weird.

Christianity is seriously dead in the UK. Most people will say they're Christian on forms etc.. but its only because of the stigma associated with Agnostic/Atheist beliefs.

The churches are empty and many are being turned into bars...!

[ad_hominem]

I find it surprising how many people are atheist on this forum. I rarely meet other atheists in real life.

The internet is drastically more atheist than geographical locations, I find.