Religulous

[Kaylia]

Did you ignore everything else that was said about agnostism and atheism kaylia?

I realize the standard approach to religion is

1. State your case
2. Ignore contradicting evidence
3. Believe premis forever

But as a "mathematician" as you call yourself, try and apply a bit more logic to your posts. You went back to the same -weak- attack on the definition of atheist/agnostics that has been addressed in this thread already, even after 5 posts contradicting your statement. You then went BACK to the definitive god argument that you lost in the last thread.

You have a really short memory for a "mathematician".

You're still an idiot. The only "argument" you ever make in those thread are personal attack....I find it hilarious that you declare yourself the "winner" when you couldn't demonstrate shit either. Not to mention you avoided most of my questions when I asked you to clarify your point in the last thread...it's easy to say "I'm right", much harder to prove it.

I said "as a mathematician" because you started your post with "as a scientist". If you reject the existence of God as an atheism, you can't say the probability is anything other than 0%. If this probability is an undermined number between 0 and 1, then you're an agnosticism. If you manage to give a weight to this probablity and determine that X is higher ¬X, I would like to hear your flawless and non biased reasoning.

If you want to include "agnosticism" in "atheism" broad description (which make sense when you look at the ethymology), I'm fine with your belief, but we have to agree on a definition first. If atheism and agnosticism don't cover the same ground, then your definition of atheism OR agnosticism is flawed, because you can't be in both set at the same time.

In your next reply, can you please include your definition of atheism AND agnosticism. I would be interested to see how you can be an non agnostic atheist with the belief you posted earlier. I don't care if 4-5 of you guys believe something...if the definition is contradictory, I still won't agree with you.

Seriously, "as a scientist", you shouldn't even bother with this topic, because you know you can't prove that one side is better than the other. Why trying to defend an opinion that can't be defended.

[aurik]

I consider myself an agnostic fundamentalist.

[quannum]

In your next reply, can you please include your definition of atheism AND agnosticism. I would be interested to see how you can be an non agnostic atheist with the belief you posted earlier. I don't care if 4-5 of you guys believe something...if the definition is contradictory, I still won't agree with you.

I don't see what's so hard about this. you can lack knowledge (of the existence) of a diety AND not be in the state of believing (in the existence) in a diety. neither one of these states require one to make a positive statement about the world.

Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.

Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), according to Graham Oppy, is "the view which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence."

also while i'm in a philosophical masturbation mood...

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

it's not like atheist is on 1 side of a scale, theist is on the other and agnostic is in the middle. it's more like a series of tubes, i mean venn diagram with overlapping magisteria.

[Kaylia]

You're being too general for the word God, which is a word tied to theist belief/definition. You're basically saying "God: Something sentient or not sentient that explains what makes things, that we don't yet know how, happen." which is far too general (and frankly useless) for a discussion involving theism. We don't know a lot about sub-atomic particles or what lies beyond some points in space or how some diseases develop; you're saying that's God.

The definition you quoted covers two things: an absense of belief in god(s) or a rejection of theism. There's nothing rejecting the possibility of unknown forces; there's only a rejection of the theist concept of those forces (in some cases; for some atheism only goes as far as simple lack of belief).

If you want to argue about something with anyone, you have to agree on the definition first. It's not possible to convince people when every propositions have different meaning.

When I said this earlier, I was simply defining God with the most general definition we can agree with, one that generalize the concept to the minimum requirement. Actually, I prefer to say I'm definining the concept of God instead of God itself, because I don't believe God is finite, or at least, it can't be finite if you want to go with the "cause of all cause" explanation.

I never said (and never will say) that God could be found in subabtomic particles or in space. That would go against the scientific methods itself (everything need a cause).


Concerning atheism, I should have clarified my point before leaving last night. There is only 2 possible state to God. It's true or false. If you want to categorize people in two super category (theism and the rest), you will have to include agnosticism with atheism. This is what we call the broad definition of "atheism", and the one you're talking about.

Generally speaking, people don't include agnosticism as a subgroup of atheism. The moment we talk about undefined probability, we leave the "atheist" set and join the "agnosticism" one.

[Kaylia]

I don't see what's so hard about this. you can lack knowledge (of the existence) of a diety AND not be in the state of believing (in the existence) in a diety. neither one of these states require one to make a positive statement about the world.

Which state are you in? Can you please elaborate.

If you lack the "knowledges", you obviously won't be in the state of believing in the existence of a God. However, how can you be in a different state than agnostic's "undefined" position (assuming there is no act of faith in the first place)

Beckwin said agnosticism are "lazy"....but quite frankly, atheist seem to be the one who didn't push their reasoning to the end. This is why I jumped in the debate.

If you want to include every lazy people in atheism, I don't mind being wrong, but that would make you lazy.

it's not like atheist is on 1 side of a scale, theist is on the other and agnostic is in the middle. it's more like a series of tubes, i mean venn diagram with overlapping magisteria.

Personally, I think set theories is better to describe thing like this, but you can use w/e you want, it won't change the logic and definition.

[Beckwin]

There is only 2 possible state to God. It's true or false.

I guess, the problem is though that God (aka any one of the Theist notions of it) is basically the monkey-typewriter-shakespeare case... such a virtual impossibility of a work of fiction being EXACTLY manifested in nature/chaos. then of course there's the possibility that there is a third option, since we have to be open to the possibility of something we can't yet/ever begin to comprehend.

[Kaylia]

I guess, the problem is though that God (aka any one of the Theist notions of it) is basically the monkey-typewriter-shakespeare case... such a virtual impossibility of a work of fiction being EXACTLY manifested in nature/chaos. then of course there's the possibility that there is a third option, since we have to be open to the possibility of something we can't yet/ever begin to comprehend.

I don't approve theism either.

I don't have any problem with the actual belief that God exists (or don't), but overdefining something is always a waste of time. Sadly, most (all) organized religion are defining their concept to a point where it gets ridiculous. It's particularly bad when they start explaining something with a belief...that's like multiplying your argument by 0, or adding a parameter that always make your equation true.

On the bright side, I don't think religion are as harmful as people say. They can be in certain case, but to most people, they simply serve as a moral guideline.

[Beckwin]

if you don't approve theism, that'd make you an atheist- you are without theist belief. and that "overdefining" is what I've been trying to explain all along.... an atheist doesn't have to reject all the undefined or lesser defined possibilities, just the "god" possibility, because god is too/over defined.

[Mizango]

I wish I could just copy/pasta my book like posts from the previous 10 religious threads, because I really don't feel like typing that again.

[Kuya]

if you don't approve theism, that'd make you an atheist- you are without theist belief. and that "overdefining" is what I've been trying to explain all along.... an atheist doesn't have to reject all the undefined or lesser defined possibilities, just the "god" possibility, because god is too/over defined.

It would help if you specified under what context you're speaking, as i think you're referencing a monotheistic point of view when you talk. In other words; you're talking about a single relative definition/description of a god. Unless what you mean to say is that atheism is the rejection of religious belief and not spiritual belief as you're rejecting notions of a god exceeding from the basic principle of what a god is, meaning you're not criticizing all spirituality just a specific sect or sects. In whatever case you may be redefining atheism and agnosticism.

So i have to ask, is atheism the rejection of religious belief or all belief based on spirituality?

[Jefe]

As a logician and computer engineer, god represents the 3 o's.

[Beckwin]

It would help if you specified under what context you're speaking, as i think you're referencing a monotheistic point of view when you talk. In other words; you're talking about a single relative definition/description of a god. Unless what you mean to say is that atheism is the rejection of religious belief and not spiritual belief as you're rejecting notions of a god exceeding from the basic principle of what a god is, meaning you're not criticizing all spirituality just a specific sect or sects. In whatever case you may be redefining atheism and agnosticism.

So i have to ask, is atheism the rejection of religious belief or all belief based on spirituality?

I dunno, I suppose it generally rejects spiritual belief because even that assumes too much. atheism doesn't necessarily reject the sufficiently vague possibilities that some kinds of spiritualism puts forth; it just doesn't give merit to them- but maybe not universally. this is getting into strong/weak atheism... a weak atheist would be one only in not accepting theist conceptions of the unknown, but could still have unrelated/sufficiently vague spiritual beliefs.

I am objecting to agnosticism because I think it's basically atheism that's decided to cater to theists.

[Mizango]

Ok fuck it I lied...

I think we should make a thread solely for this purpose, and post ABSOLUTE FACTS and go tit for tat and see who's evidence stacks up in the face of doubt. Now I am not shitting on anyone personal beliefs because you know, to each his own, but I personally want to see something concrete besides "God is real because this book says so".

One main argument theists make is that the Universe cant simply "exist" or come about from a "big bang", despite there being proof to the contrary. What most fail to realize is using their argument against them you can force them into a circular paradox. Science is scoffed at for implying that we are here through a random set of processes set in motion from the big bang, yet it is ok for theist to believe that God just magically appeared and made shit?

Who created God? Who created God's God? Who created God's God God? Who created Gods, God, God, God so on into infinity. Why can this outlandish discrepancy be so widely accepted by so many people? Why do we never read or hear about Dinosaurs, in your book? All science did was give us proof. No mention of the Space, Planets, Galaxies, Nebulaem the United States, Feudal Japan or any other countries by name outside of the Middle East. Did God just forget to mention this or was he just really pressed for time and chose to omit it from the "manual" of how to live your life?

Again, I welcome and challenge anyone to show and present everyone with absolute proof of this existence. Just how we (Science lovers) cant declare something as absolute fact without proof, why are you not held to the same standard? Just some serious questions that I would like genuine answers.

Example of what I detest about Religion: A woman is stricken with cancer, now you will notice that whether she lives or dies it will be declared a great justice by God. If she lives she will cry and proclaim that he saved her life and go on a book tour about how she is here for a purpose. Conversely if she dies God is forgiven and again praised and taking her home to a "better" place free of the pain of life? Why is that? That is just too convenient in my opinion. He totally didn't give a shit about here young children that will NEVER know their mother, didn't give a fuck about her husband that faithfully prayed for her recovery and gave his all to her through out his marriage etc...

I call that the Linus effect. As long as you have your security blanket you can go on win or lose no matter what life throws at you. I mean some people still believe we live in a 9 planet solar system with one Sun and that's it. If you believe that then I feel for you. Exoplanets, WMAP imaging, White dwarfs, stars and Galaxies dying and being born before our eyes, cosmic inflation.... I can cite facts and proof for all of these, my question to you is can you do the same?

A simple and reasonable request I believe.

[Kuya]

You didn't really answer the question; does it or does it not reject all belief based on spirituality? Meaning atheism pronounces that all of this is without merit because it is not empiricist. If atheism rejects all spiritual belief because it is not empiricist or tangible then how can you still call someone an atheist when they don't reject every single belief based on spirituality? Furthermore "weak atheism" sounds like thinly veiled bias against those who do not reject all spiritual belief. It implies some sort of superiority emanating from those who are "strong" atheist, and some mental inferiority in "weak" atheism which consequentially some would also call agnosticism.

And another thing, A-Theism; Theism does not include all belief based on spirituality, so technically speaking, atheism does not reject all spiritual belief, just those related to theism, which often include a single deity, or highly defined deities.

[Beckwin]

the problem is "faith", Aquinas was all over this shit hundreds of years ago creating an out for theists to avoid scientific evidence/proofs/whatever.

[Beckwin]

You didn't really answer the question; does it or does it not reject all belief based on spirituality? Meaning atheism pronounces that all of this is without merit because it is not empiricist. If atheism rejects all spiritual belief because it is not empiricist or tangible then how can you still call someone an atheist when they don't reject every single belief based on spirituality? Furthermore "weak atheism" sounds like thinly veiled bias against those who do not reject all spiritual belief. It implies some sort of superiority emanating from those who are "strong" atheist, and some mental inferiority in "weak" atheism which consequentially some would also call agnosticism.

And another thing, A-Theism; Theism does not include all belief based on spirituality, so technically speaking, atheism does not reject all spiritual belief, just those related to theism, which often include a single deity, or highly defined deities.

umm, I pretty much did answer what you're looking for. strictly/literally speaking, atheism only implies non-belief/rejection of theist beliefs regarding the unknown. sorry you don't like the additional terms of weak/strong (I didn't make them up; it's just what I've seen used to define the basic differences among atheists), but weak atheists will separate between "spirituality" and theism while strong atheists don't see enough distinction generally between the two to warrant a separation.

[Kuya]

According to wikipedia; presume what you wish:

Theism:

Theism, in its most inclusive usage, is the belief in at least one deity. Some narrower usages specify that the deity believed in be a distinct identifiable entity, thereby being contrasted with pantheism. Other narrower usages specify that the deity (or deities) be an active, immanent force in the universe, thus excluding some forms of deism. Theism can be categorized into more particular types, such as monotheism (in which case the word God is capitalized) and polytheism.

Atheism:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[4][5][6][7]

Agnosticism:

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God[citation needed], gods, deities, ghosts or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

According to these definitions, one can be an atheist and an agnostic. Though the contradiction will exist depending on how the individual goes about his own beliefs. Meaning, one can reject theism as too defined and easily defeated by logic, and not reject pantheism, deism, or any other form of spirituality, because they do not add too many factors into their beliefs which may lead to logical contradictions, but not saying that he/she believes in any of this as there is no proof just as much as there is no proof against it; these two can support themselves as long as the atheist's reason for opposition is a lack of logic.

[Kaylia]

if you don't approve theism, that'd make you an atheist- you are without theist belief. and that "overdefining" is what I've been trying to explain all along.... an atheist doesn't have to reject all the undefined or lesser defined possibilities, just the "god" possibility, because god is too/over defined.

I already addressed this earlier, twice (or more). If atheism = ¬theism, then agnostic are atheist by definition (because they are not theist). In this scenario, I disaprove both "strong atheism", and "theism", and I would be considered an "agnostic atheism". I've no problem with this definition if this is how you want to define "atheism".

My post wasn't an objection to your previous post, I was agreeing with you about organized religion. However, I'm still an agnostic, because I can't approve the decision to pick a choice when the situation isn't defined.


And my whole points is that you can't reject "God" because it's overdefined by a particular religion. You have to generalize the concept and strip it from the "overdefined" part before rejecting it.

[Mizango]

You will notice that people get offended when you seemingly disrespect "their: deity. You can find churches on Youtube talking shit and denouncing Islam and a "violent" and "facetious" religion. I see most that have no qualms about calling Muslims "Towel heads" etc.. Most people here dont believe in Zeus, Horus, Ra, Anubis, Thor, Krishna, Lakshmi, The prophet Muhammad, Dagda or Danu.

But to other cultures and religions that means something and is very real to them. Does that no make you the very thing are you smiting? Generally speaking you too are an atheist to an extent, you just stop yours one deity short. I have to give credit to Richard Dawkins for that one. Man I wish I could the clip of Dr. Degrasse Tyson's "Stupid design", but its late and not going to bother.

Just something to think about. It is only offensive when it applies to your personal beliefs. I bet if someone told you to say "fuck Zeus" you would have no qualms about that. This in ancient times would get you fucking stoned or fed to a Kraken like Andromeda. You are walking a fine like and don't see it because of self serving blinders.

Im not here to change anyone mind, I could care less what you do or believe as it is non of my business or concern. I am just pointing out how similarly you think, so think twice before tossing around your fire and brimstone quotes.

Speaking of which... what the fuck is with Sodom and Gomorrah? It was destroyed for having hot orgy sex, Homosexuals and being the biblical equivalent of Vegas right? Explain to me why God left Abraham unpunished after he got drunk and fucked his daughter because she was "without man"? I mean what that not the purpose of nuking the city? Contradictions like these make me face palm.

I can go on for days, the contradictions never end. Proof is all we are asking.

[Beckwin]

Kaylia, the word "God" is theist by nature. call it "unknown force/entity" and then we're talkin'.

But consider this: if you don't have an opinion either way, doesn't that mean you lack belief in theism? so I think we're in agreement that agnostics are atheists (which is part of my original premise, if you recall). what I'm challenging is the reason for agnosticism to be defined from atheism because of what I see as catering to theists.

I just think it's totally unnecessary to acknowledge that you don't know all the truths and that it may be impossible to, but then to say "well y'know they could be 100% right about all that jesus/mohammad/buddha/krishna/great father/zeus/thor stuff" when you fucking know some of it has to be fiction.