Religulous

[Kuya]

In reality, you'd probably only call yourself an agnostic if you'd care enough to be accurate, but it's such a meaninglessly issue that some would use atheism and agnosticism interchangeably in terms of theism, even though agnosticism is the most accurate position to take. Anyone who really knows what atheism means likely choses to associate with it because they have some particular beef with some religion.

[Eratosthenes]

Theism: Believe in God
Antitheism: Believe that God doesn't exist
Agnosticism: the truth is unknowable
Deism: Believe in a "God", but can't define it.
Atheism: Understand that his reject of God is is a belief
Henotheism: Belief in God with consideration that other beliefs may be equally valid (it seems some of you are confusing this with agnosticism.)

Fixed.

[Priran]

No, english isn't my first language, but it doesn't change anything to my post.


Not believing in God require a belief that there is no God. This belief can't be demonstrated.

so not only do you not get the language but your short-term memory is shot? cool. now I get to explain how you're wrong.

"god is not a cat in a steel box": a person's belief in a god either exists or it does not.
"either you believe in one or you don't": here's what you're doing
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7793/wrongkc0.gif

here's how english actually works
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/7848/rightdr8.gif



btw having no belief and having a belief in nothing are not only different things, they're mutually exclusive.

[Kaylia]

You can use those definition if you want. There is like 25 way to describe your belief, and many overlap with each other.

Atheism however include the "affirmation of the non existence of God" in almost every definition, your definition is too specific probably.

[Kaylia]

so not only do you not get the language but your short-term memory is shot? cool. now I get to explain how you're wrong.

"god is not a cat in a steel box": a person's belief in a god either exists or it does not.
"either you believe in one or you don't": here's what you're doing
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7793/wrongkc0.gif

here's how english actually works
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/7848/rightdr8.gif



btw having no belief and having a belief in nothing are not only different things, they're mutually exclusive.

Maybe I'm just tired, but your point still make no sense. I know you are talking about the 2nd one, it's just that atheism require you to go with the first model.


Just answer this question instead: "Can you justify atheism stance without any belief"?


[edit]
If you reject God or Theism, it means you have a "valid" argument to do so. This argument will require belief for sure. If you simply have "no belief", than you are most likely a confused agnosticist who think he is atheist.

[Eratosthenes]

[edit]
If you reject God or Theism, it means you have a "valid" argument to do so. This argument will require belief for sure. If you simply have "no belief", than you are most likely a confused agnosticist who think he is atheist.

I need no valid reason to reject theism if there is no valid reason to be a theist in the first place.

[Kaylia]

I need no valid reason to reject theism if there is no valid

Which "not valid" reason do you use to reject theism then? Because you still need a reason. You're not an atheism if you simply choose to not care.



And the causality paradox is generally enough for people to postulate the existance of something else. That's what the thread was about before Priran pressed the reset button and brought us back on page 3.

[Priran]

That depends on how you're defining atheism. If you're defining atheism like I am, as being an absence of faith in a higher power of any kind, then yes, atheism can exist without belief. I don't have to believe in a higher power. Faith isn't a part of my life and I've never been compelled to make it one.

Going by the crap you and Eratos posted, which is biased towards making agnostics feel fuzzy inside, no.

[Priran]

That's what the thread was about before Priran pressed the reset button and brought us back on page 3.

p.s. my name is now cow_k


p.p.s. nuh uh there were still some people talking about the movie on page 3

[Kaylia]

That depends on how you're defining atheism. If you're defining atheism like I am, as being an absence of faith in a higher power of any kind, then yes, atheism can exist without belief. I don't have to believe in a higher power. Faith isn't a part of my life and I've never been compelled to make it one.

Going by the crap you and Eratos posted, which is biased towards making agnostics feel fuzzy inside, no.

There is no reason to feel fuzzy about those definitions...we just need to describe the same thing with the same words to avoid pointless argument. I don't mind using your definition, as long it include everyone in a way there is no useless definition.

So far, I'm fine with your definition....
Atheism: absence of faith in a higher power of any kind

However, do you reject the existance of a God? Or simply avoided the question? If you reject God, can you say there is no "belief" at all in the reasoning? If you avoid the question, how is it different than the stance agnosticist are taking.

[Eratosthenes]

Which "not valid" reason do you use to reject theism then? Because you still need a reason. You're not an atheism if you simply choose to not care.



And the causality paradox is generally enough for people to postulate the existance of something else. That's what the thread was about before Priran pressed the reset button and brought us back on page 3.

Theism does not meet its burden of proof, that's why there's no valid reason to be a theist.

I don't reject the existence of something else, I reject the claim that the something else must be a deity.

[Kaylia]

Theism does not meet its burden of proof, that's why there's no valid reason to be a theist.

I don't reject the existence of something else, I reject the claim that the something else must be a deity.

And what this something else is?

[Eratosthenes]

And what this something else is?

How the fuck should I know?

[Kaylia]

How the fuck should I know?

I don't know either, I'm agnostic.

[Priran]

However, do you reject the existance of a God? Or simply avoided the question? If you reject God, can you say there is no "belief" at all in the reasoning? If you avoid the question, how is it different than the stance agnosticist are taking.

"higher power" is just a catch-all that includes a god and any other hippie nonsense people feel like worshiping like fucking crystals or spirits or some shit.

I've never accepted a god. There's no belief involved in it, I've just always seen faith as an aspect of someone's personality and as a trait I simply lack.

[Kaylia]

That's where I disagree mostly. You can't reject ("not accept") something for no reason. You reject it because you estimated that the probability of this event is null. However, I don't think it's possible to come to this conclusion unless you have certain beliefs (even if those beliefs seem more logical to you).

If you admit there is a small possibility that theist are right, you're forced to admit it's not possible to give any % to the probability. This is basically the reasoning that made me become an agnosticist.

Could you try to convince me to become an atheist? If you can justify it for yourself, the same justification should work for me (if there is no belief).

[Denchi]

Kaylia makes sense. He's not trying to change what you believe, he's simply clarifying, why would you even be defensive about that? Unless you just really want the title of "Athiest" for some reason.

[Kaylia]

Kaylia makes sense. He's not trying to change what you believe, he's simply clarifying, why would you even be defensive about that?

Hmm? No insult were tossed for a while, I don't think anyone is being defensive or anything (beyond the defense of their own argument). >_> And at least, Priran is clarifying his statement and answering my question, unlike a certain person earlier today.

[Cow_k]

I brought this back up because you people had basically accepted the idea that agnostic = atheist hiding under pretty words, but that's the stupidest thing I've ever read. Theism and atheism are working in absolutes. It's not just black and white, there can be shades of grey with self held opinions.

EXAMPLE:
The North and the South are fighting. I wander into this conflict from the outside. The north thinks cheese is the best food in existence and the south thinks cheese stinks. I personally like cheese, but can understand why some people don't. I'd like to think that cheese could be the best food out there, but seeing as how I haven't yet eaten all foods, I don't really want to declare cheese as king of all food because what if there's another food out there that I like?

So I go to the north and tell them that while I think cheese is ok, I don't know if it's the best food in existence. So what does the North do? They chase me out of town calling me a non-cheese lover. With nowhere else to go, I go to the south. I tell the south that I believe that cheese might not be the best food ever, but that I do like it and for all I know it very well may be my favorite food. The south chases me out saying I must be with the north. Now I'm stuck somewhere in the middle. I can't call myself a member of the north or the south, I need my own definition because clearly I can't belong to either side. Sure there's many shades of Agnosticism... I could call myself a member of the west, east, northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest, but that's not really the issue at hand. As was stated earlier, with religion you might be a skeptic (Agnostic leaning more towards atheistic principals which is where I'd put Bill in the movie), or you might actually practice some religious ideals without actually being religious yourself.

You don't even need to come up with fake cheese warring worlds to see other examples of this. For instance, in politics you have the right and the left. Where do you fall when you're neither side? That's right, you become a moderate. Now you can be a moderate leaning left or leaning right, but you're still a freaking moderate.

Coming up with terms like "irreligious" to describe something we ALREADY have a word for, agnosticism, is stupid. Someone who's 'irreligious' very well could be atheist or agnostic, but someone who's agnostic IS NOT atheist. Atheists say there's no God or higher power and no knowledge available now, in the past or in the future is ever going to change that. Atheists are just as close minded as theists and I refuse to throw myself into a camp that declares an answer on something that has no scientific answer. Either A. God will come down and say in my ear "Hey buddy, I do exist wtfbbq" while I'm still alive or B. I'll die and join oblivion (which may not prove anything, just because I don't continue existence after death doesn't mean that something didn't create the universe) and I'll have my answer there.

I find things like this important because classifying yourself as something you're not is never a good thing. I'm white and I don't really mind being white. Should I run around telling people that I'm a white supremacist just because I think being white is ok? Yeesh.

[Roranora]

It's interesting how these discussions always turn into agnostics vs. atheists, as opposed to religious people vs. agnostics/atheists.