Ask An Agnostic

[Dennis K]

I'm listening

[Night]

Why has it taken so long for this one to appear? I mean when I saw it, I was sure there had to be another one with same title.

[Dennis K]

Yours is not a legitimate question.

[Gingold]

Why has it taken so long for this one to appear?

Because everyone's an agnostic.

[Dennis K]

Because everyone's an agnostic.


Please stop trying to steal my near thunder.

[Night]

Yours is not a legitimate question.Why is it not legitimate? Wouldn't the answer hint to the very nature of agnosticism? Then again... it was somewhat asked rhetorically... so in a way you're right.
Because everyone's an agnostic.I would think at least the gnostics would disagree with you.

[Gingold]

Nah, none of us knows for sure. We may believe or not believe, but we're all agnostic.

[Night]

Nah, none of us knows for sure. We may believe or not believe, but we're all agnostic. How do you know that for sure?

[Chris Nowlin]

Dear agnostic, how does it feel to have the only belief that's correct?

[Dennis K]

Why is it not legitimate? Wouldn't the answer hint to the very nature of agnosticism? Then again... it was somewhat asked rhetorically... so in a way you're right.


Yes, I am right.

[Dennis K]

Nah, none of us knows for sure. We may believe or not believe, but we're all agnostic.


You continue to horn in on my near thunder.

[Dennis K]

Dear agnostic, how does it feel to have the only belief that's correct?


I can't tell you.

[spoon_jenkins]

Do you think the world is such that you'll always be agnostic or is there some event that could definitively put you in the atheist or theist camps?

[Chris Nowlin]

Dear agnostic,

Is Agnositicism influenced more by not knowing or not caring?

[Joey Friday]

Dear Agnostic, do you really have nothing better to do with your time than answer random questions about religion over the internet?

[Mike Smash!]

Dear Agnostic, do you really have nothing better to do with your time than answer random questions about religion over the internet?

Isn't that what you have just done?

[Joey Friday]

*shakes head* Nope.

[KameTen]

*shakes head* Nope.

So you have nothing better to do with your time than to ask random questions to a person who is willing to give an answer?

[Sparda]

Do you think the world is such that you'll always be agnostic or is there some event that could definitively put you in the atheist or theist camps?
For me personally, I'd always be agnostic until the day I die, and then find out for sure if there is something of a afterlife or not.

The day when "god" litterally opens up the clouds, plays poker, and strikes lightning is the day I'll start believing or hard scientific facts that he does'nt exist at all.

Is Agnositicism influenced more by not knowing or not caring?
It's more of not knowing and being uncertain.


Dear Agnostic, do you really have nothing better to do with your time than answer random questions about religion over the internet?
It's either this or watch crappy tv programs.

[JadeDragon]

I think this is a very important topic.

A lot of the people I know would gladly accept that there is a God, if only there was some form of proof.

I salute the people that at least leave the door open to the possibility that there might be intelligent design in this reality.

To me, proof is in every molecule of sunlight that scrapes against my eyes in the morning when I awake. Its in the miracle of quantum mechanics that makes me believe that the bits of tiny particles of vibrating light that make up my physical existence seems reasonable and enough to satisfy my curiosity about my own existence. The conscious mind within me used to being married to an organic body tries to convince me that this is the natural order of things, except that my greater wisdom reminds me of the science around me at all times that fails to convince me that the illusion of this life is really real.

For me, I think of God as a humble Spirit above all else. The Creator of the Universe hides himself, giving us all the choice to go where we want with our beliefs. THAT in essence, is the very Game of Life. The challenge put before every sentient being in this universe. Either drowned in delusional ego or enlightened to truth and omni-consciousness.

But my own opinion is that God is Us, and yet He has hidden His true self from us in a way that gives us freedom of choice. We can either recognize that all matter, consciousness and energy in the universe is coming from one source, or we can decide that the universe is simply there and we are a part of it and exist spontaneously without intelligent design.

Its up to the intuition of each of us to decide what is most comfortable to us. To me, the man of doubt is simply myself living in another body, at a differing point of my own spiritual evolution.

Does that make any sense? I think we are all one. And as such, we are communicating with different evolutionary versions of our own self.

Namaste.~~~Patrick

[Chris Nowlin]

That was nicely said. But to me, this is the most important bit:


Its up to the intuition of each of us to decide what is most comfortable to us.



I think we are all one.

And amen to that

[KameTen]

I would like to contribute as well.

I've, as many people can attest to, have never met God. Don't know what it looks like, don't know where it is. What has been provided by monotheistic circles rings false and speaks more of the culture of a society than divinity, and the core of atheism is scientifically impossible and offers no real alternatives to the concept that they so deny. So until the day that an answer is given, I'm content to say "I don't know". It already takes a great deal of time and effort when dealing with people and cultures, and I don't think I have the energy to make a go at deciphering the dealings of something who's definition does not lend itself to clean discussion.

[Mike Smash!]

I would like to contribute as well.

I've, as many people can attest to, have never met God. Don't know what it looks like, don't know where it is. What has been provided by monotheistic circles rings false and speaks more of the culture of a society than divinity, and the core of atheism is scientifically impossible and offers no real alternatives to the concept that they so deny. So until the day that an answer is given, I'm content to say "I don't know".

I'd be very interested in hearing you explain the bolded bit in more detail. How is it "scientifically impossible?"

[(A)//(E)]

I was an atheist for quite awhile, but I always had a nagging feeling of "how can I presume to be wise enough to make this decision?"
As I get older I find myself realizing that I presume very MUCH and know very LITTLE. I also find it diffucult to speak in absolute terms about nearly anything, makes me feel like an ass regardless of if I'm actually right or wrong.

[KameTen]

I'd be very interested in hearing you explain the bolded bit in more detail. How is it "scientifically impossible?"

I shall try.

The law of conservation of matter and energy state that neither can be created or destroyed, only transfered between the two states. In my interpretation of it, within our realm of existence, there cannot be a lack of something or an absence of something within, it must either be something or something else. The core of Atheism deals with non-existence, specifically the non-existence of a deity or series of deities. Because the belief itself does not offer a means of filling that space with an equal and plausible alternative, it would stand to say that what is being offered cannot occur as is perceived. Something has to fill the void that keeps things at a constant.

[thespianphryne]

I shall try.

The law of conservation of matter and energy state that neither can be created or destroyed, only transfered between the two states. In my interpretation of it, within our realm of existence, there cannot be a lack of something or an absence of something within, it must either be something or something else. The core of Atheism deals with non-existence, specifically the non-existence of a deity or series of deities. Because the belief itself does not offer a means of filling that space with an equal and plausible alternative, it would stand to say that what is being offered cannot occur as is perceived. Something has to fill the void that keeps things at a constant.

Erm...these things aren't homologous, or congruent, and as far as analogies go that's a long stretch.

[Mike Smash!]

I shall try.

The law of conservation of matter and energy state that neither can be created or destroyed, only transfered between the two states. In my interpretation of it, within our realm of existence, there cannot be a lack of something or an absence of something within, it must either be something or something else. The core of Atheism deals with non-existence, specifically the non-existence of a deity or series of deities. Because the belief itself does not offer a means of filling that space with an equal and plausible alternative, it would stand to say that what is being offered cannot occur as is perceived. Something has to fill the void that keeps things at a constant.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Because with that logic, nothing cannot exist. If I say that there is no real Superman, I have to figure out what fills the void that he would have occupied if he existed?

If you're saying that you don't believe in, say, Superman, you have to give a plausible and equal alternative to fill Superman's void or Superman's non-existence is scientifically impossible?

There are plenty of things in the world that exist only in our imagination. According to you, they have to all be real.

That's ridiculous.

[KameTen]

Erm...these things aren't homologous, or congruent, and as far as analogies go that's a long stretch.

The core within the concepts of a monotheistic deity deal with an entity that has and is capable of affecting all aspects of our existence either as an aspect in our contained existence or outside of it. The core of atheism states that such concepts or entities do not exist, but does not offer an alternative that can fulfill the role of said concept, or that there is anything at all to confirm or deny that said concepts occur. One deals with something that exists either outside of our sphere of existence, or within our sphere. The other says that there is a lack of something without offering something of equal measure.

The laws concerning the conservation of matter state that there is a fixed amount of matter within our existence, no more or less. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only converted to another form. The laws concerning energy and its states fall along these same lines. To my understanding, there cannot be a lack of something within a closed system, only the transformation of something into something else without loss or gain.

The core of atheism claims that there is no God or similar deities performing most of the acts associated with them. Atheism asks that I accept that there is a lack of something with an equal substitute. The analogy is apt.

[thespianphryne]

So you're saying thoughts and ideas are subject to physical laws?

[Mike Smash!]

The core of atheism claims that there is no God or similar deities performing most of the acts associated with them. Atheism asks that I accept that there is a lack of something with an equal substitute. The analogy is apt.

I'm sorry. But this is a very poor analogy. Energy that never existed cannot leave a void.

First it requires you to believe in the existence of an all powerful being or force before rejecting it. Basically you're saying "god is all powerful and if god doesn't exist, what's there being all-powerful in his absense?"

It's circular logic. What has never existed leaves no void.

There are plenty of good arguments against any belief system. This is a very poor one.

[Mike Smash!]

Two of my closest friends are Agnostic.

One is a very philosophical guy who is desperately curious, but does not know whether to believe in a deity or not.

The other simply doesn't give a shit whether a deity exists or not.

Agnostics on the boards, which of my friends is most similar to you?

[KameTen]

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Because with that logic, nothing cannot exist. If I say that there is no real Superman, I have to figure out what fills the void that he would have occupied if he existed?

If you're saying that you don't believe in, say, Superman, you have to give a plausible and equal alternative to fill Superman's void or Superman's non-existence is scientifically impossible?

There are plenty of things in the world that exist only in our imagination. According to you, they have to all be real.

That's ridiculous.

I did not give an answer that gave free pass to anything conceived. I am saying that there has to be something to replace that entity in an equal manner, otherwise its existence can create a lack of something that the universe cannot compensate with, leading to a possible collapse.

And besides, in a sense, Superman is real. A concept fulfilled within the pages of a comic, where the laws that our sciences observe do no play a pivotal role in his feats. As an actual, tangible thing within our sphere of existence, than his plausibility is wagered on the possibility that there is a source of energy easily accessible that can compensate the insane amounts of energy needed for his feats and still keep the equilibrium without causing said collapse.

Existence is a puzzle, we just have to find the pieces and figure out where they fit.

[Matt]

You're starting off with a false premise - the one that X exists when there's no evidence for X existing to begin with. Due to that, your entire argument simply doesn't stack up.

[Mike Smash!]

I did not give an answer that gave free pass to anything conceived. I am saying that there has to be something to replace that entity in an equal manner, otherwise its existence can create a lack of something that the universe cannot compensate with, leading to a possible collapse.

And besides, in a sense, Superman is real. A concept fulfilled within the pages of a comic, where the laws that our sciences observe do no play a pivotal role in his feats. As an actual, tangible thing within our sphere of existence, than his plausibility is wagered on the possibility that there is a source of energy easily accessible that can compensate the insane amounts of energy needed for his feats and still keep the equilibrium without causing said collapse.

Existence is a puzzle, we just have to find the pieces and figure out where they fit.

Again, you don't need to replace what doesn't exist in the first place. You're using a circular argument that requires you to start from a false premise and using it to justify itself.

It's so insane that it actually makes your own Agnosticism impossible. How can you be unsure about the question when one position is a scientific impossibility?

I'm not arguing for Atheism or against your Agnosticism, but your reasoning is ludicrous and needs to be challenged.

[KameTen]

I'm sorry. But this is a very poor analogy. Energy that never existed cannot leave a void.

First it requires you to believe in the existence of an all powerful being or force before rejecting it. Basically you're saying "god is all powerful and if god doesn't exist, what's there being all-powerful in his absense?"

It's circular logic. What has never existed leaves no void.

There are plenty of good arguments against any belief system. This is a very poor one.

And you are trying to convince me that what does not exist can be given value and still maintain non-existence in some sort.

If it does not exist, then why are you able to acknowledge it in the first place? Why can you conceptualize it in the first place if it had no value?

God, stripped of cultural influences and anthropomorphic qualities, is nothing more than a trigger to events. A possibility at the beginning that may influence the end which influences the beginning without an end. Without the add-ons, I consider it quite probable.

It it taking a bit of effort to keep my concept of what "God" is as bare-bones as possible, to remove what I think is hindering a decent conversation towards what we are and what is the cause of our being here. I am an agnostic because I don't think I'll ever be able to truly get to the core of things and provide a clear answer, but it does not mean that I can't try in the while. I just don't want to go by the standard rules.

[KameTen]

You're starting off with a false premise - the one that X exists when there's no evidence for X existing to begin with. Due to that, your entire argument simply doesn't stack up.

And you are asking me to accept that man can conceptualize a nothing and still have it remain as nothing. That zero is tangible and intangible at the same time.

If that is the case, than it should not be hard to find a human who is not a human at the same time.

[Mike Smash!]

Clearly, you do not get it. You're arguing semantics and making circular arguments. If something has to be real to be conceptualized or debated, that would mean that everything on the Rumbles board has to be real as well.

If something has never existed, it can leave no void. It undergoes no change. It simply never was.

So if Atheism is a scientific impossibility, so is Agnosticism. If the question is "does a god exist?" and one answer is outright wrong and impossible, uncertainty isn't an option.

[Chris Nowlin]

Mike, while I'm with you 100% on this, I understood it the first time. Were four posts necessary just to emphasise your point?





What server?

[Mike Smash!]

Mike, while I'm with you 100% on this, I understood it the first time. Were four posts necessary just to emphasise your point?Everything froze and gave me error messages and I wanted to be sure that it got posted.

[Matt]

And you are asking me to accept that man can conceptualize a nothing and still have it remain as nothing. That zero is tangible and intangible at the same time.

If that is the case, than it should not be hard to find a human who is not a human at the same time.

I'm fairly sure I never asked such a thing. I have merely pointed out that with the logic you're using, you've built your proverbial castle on some very loose sand indeed.

I have to restate that once more you are starting from a false premise. You're assuming that that there is some sort of creator or designer and going from there, though there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Was there a start to the Universe? Yes, SpaceTime is finite and before the Big Bang then time as we know simply didn't exist. Did some sort of intelligence set the Big Bang off. There's no evidence of it and things like M Theory describe it all quite nicely.

And you are asking me to accept that man can conceptualize a nothing and still have it remain as nothing.

Then again, that has indeed happened. It was one of the greatest breakthrough in mathematics - the inclusion of 'zero' into numerical processes (was it the Mayans or the Aztecs that did that first? I forget which right now). It exists but it has no value of it's own. Go figure.

[thespianphryne]

And you are trying to convince me that what does not exist can be given value and still maintain non-existence in some sort.

If it does not exist, then why are you able to acknowledge it in the first place? Why can you conceptualize it in the first place if it had no value?

God, stripped of cultural influences and anthropomorphic qualities, is nothing more than a trigger to events. A possibility at the beginning that may influence the end which influences the beginning without an end. Without the add-ons, I consider it quite probable.

It it taking a bit of effort to keep my concept of what "God" is as bare-bones as possible, to remove what I think is hindering a decent conversation towards what we are and what is the cause of our being here. I am an agnostic because I don't think I'll ever be able to truly get to the core of things and provide a clear answer, but it does not mean that I can't try in the while. I just don't want to go by the standard rules.

Sure, I can dig that. But the trouble is ascribing will to this trigger. That's what this conversation is about. There's no evidence that there's will involved. Simply because we've been ascribing will to this "trigger" doesn't make it true. The existence of "God", is no more a certainty than the existence of "gods".

Your argument is still circular.

[KameTen]

Clearly, you do not get it. You're arguing semantics and making circular arguments. If something has to be real to be conceptualized or debated, that would mean that everything on the Rumbles board has to be real as well.

If something has never existed, it can leave no void. It undergoes no change. It simply never was.

So if Atheism is a scientific impossibility, so is Agnosticism. If the question is "does a god exist?" and one answer is outright wrong and impossible, uncertainty isn't an option.

And you do not get that if it did not exist, than you would have not been able to conceptualize it in the first place. If value can be given, than it can be expressed in some form or shape as long as it can be accommodated in a proper manner. If something is not there, it is acting as a reaction to something that was there. It was never a void, only an unrealized action or reaction. And to my knowledge, there is nothing that just lacks.

Atheism operates on a premise that does not offer an alternative to their option. Even using the various sciences as a buffer, it remains incomplete and unable to assert itself in full. It needs an substitute to the God concept to realize its potential and have the ability to actually make a stand against the various monotheistic institutions. But once it finds a substitute to fully challenge and transform the concept, then Atheism transforms into something else than its original ideal.

And to look back, I should not have said that it was scientifically impossible. And for that, I apologize. But Atheism as it is now will never see its potential realized until it is able to find that substitute.

[Matt]

And you do not get that if it did not exist, than you would have not been able to conceptualize it in the first place.

That logic is ... well, it simply isn't logic or rational at all.

For example, I can very easily conceptualise and form a mental image of the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, they does not make such an entity real in any way, shape or form.

Atheism operates on a premise that does not offer an alternative to their option.

You're wrong on that account. Science offers a perfectly good evidence based explanation of pretty much everything attributed to god. Creation of the Universe? Check. Creation of life? Check. Etc.

But then again, Atheism doesn't even have to provide any sort of substitute. If someone claims that God exists, then the burden of proof is solely on them to prove it - Atheists certainly don't have to disprove the claim.

Quite simply there is absolutely no need or call for Atheists to supply any sort of 'God substitute'. It'd be like asking for a substitute for Santa Claus. Pointless.

[KameTen]

Sure, I can dig that. But the trouble is ascribing will to this trigger. That's what this conversation is about. There's no evidence that there's will involved. Simply because we've been ascribing will to this "trigger" doesn't make it true. The existence of "God", is no more a certainty than the existence of "gods".

Your argument is still circular.

I did not assign will to the trigger, I just said that there was a trigger. I'm uncertain that there is a will in the first place, and the easiest way for me to comprehend it is as a neutral force.

[Matt]

I did not assign will to the trigger, I just said that there was a trigger. I'm uncertain that there is a will in the first place, and the easiest way for me to comprehend it is as a neutral force.

Pretty much everyone agrees that there was a trigger to the creation of the Universe as we know it. SpaceTime is indeed finite and evidence points that it all started at a single point. What the trigger, however, is the question.

But note but because something is easier to comprehend makes it in no way the correct conclusion. For example, quantum mechanics puzzles the bejeezus out of me but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

[KameTen]

That logic is ... well, it simply isn't logic or rational at all.

For example, I can very easily conceptualise and form a mental image of the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster. However, they does not make such an entity real in any way, shape or form.



You're wrong on that account. Science offers a perfectly good evidence based explanation of pretty much everything attributed to god. Creation of the Universe? Check. Creation of life? Check. Etc.

But then again, Atheism doesn't even have to provide any sort of substitute. If someone claims that God exists, then the burden of proof is solely on them to prove it - Atheists certainly don't have to disprove the claim.

Quite simply there is absolutely no need or call for Atheists to supply any sort of 'God substitute'. It'd be like asking for a substitute for Santa Claus. Pointless.

Science is not Atheism. Atheism is not apart of any of the sciences' core values, nor is it a necessity to have it in order to be a scientist. The sciences we have now can be used to strengthen the core values of Atheism, but they are not one in the same. Yes, Atheism is a reaction a reaction to the many theist beliefs, but it feels a bit dishonest that one side must provide all proofs while the other side offers nothing but challenges. And for that, Atheism will never be complete to my eyes.

And as for a flying spaghetti monster, it can be drawn, and with ingenuity and craftsmanship, one can levitate a plate of spaghetti with evil eyes attached. And with the right person with the right phobia, it can be a "flying spaghetti monster". But if the concept did not exist, would you be able to conceptualize it in the first place?

Who can conceptualize what is not there unless something is triggered to create a response. What that trigger is, and whether or not it is sentient, is something I cannot answer in full. But if it exists, then it is up to us to figure out how it exists the best way we can.

[KameTen]

I'm fairly sure I never asked such a thing. I have merely pointed out that with the logic you're using, you've built your proverbial castle on some very loose sand indeed.

I have to restate that once more you are starting from a false premise. You're assuming that that there is some sort of creator or designer and going from there, though there is no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Was there a start to the Universe? Yes, SpaceTime is finite and before the Big Bang then time as we know simply didn't exist. Did some sort of intelligence set the Big Bang off. There's no evidence of it and things like M Theory describe it all quite nicely.



Then again, that has indeed happened. It was one of the greatest breakthrough in mathematics - the inclusion of 'zero' into numerical processes (was it the Mayans or the Aztecs that did that first? I forget which right now). It exists but it has no value of it's own. Go figure.

Zero, in a way, acts a line of sorts between a positive and a negative, giving nothing but separating both. Its the "agnostic" of the math world, if you care for it.

[thespianphryne]

It's eminently clear the flying spaghetti monster exists, which is why we're able to conceptualise it.

[KameTen]

Pretty much everyone agrees that there was a trigger to the creation of the Universe as we know it. SpaceTime is indeed finite and evidence points that it all started at a single point. What the trigger, however, is the question.

But note but because something is easier to comprehend makes it in no way the correct conclusion. For example, quantum mechanics puzzles the bejeezus out of me but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Without bias, we are able to understand without clutter. Treating the trigger as a neutral agent assigns it no value, but acknowledges its place at the beginning of events. Like a zero.

[Matt]

Science is not Atheism. Atheism is not apart of any of the sciences' core values, nor is it a necessity to have it.

Never said it was. However, I would dare say that the vast majority of Atheists are not ignorant of and support scientific theory.

but it feels a bit dishonest that one side must provide all proofs while the other side offers nothing but challenges.

Why? You can not disprove a negative, at least not very easily, as shown by the oft-used example of having a dragon in the boot of your car.
"I have a dragon in the back of my car."
"No, you don't. Look, it's empty."
"It's shy and hiding. Once you look away, it'll show itself."

The burden of proof in any rational debate is always with those that are trying to prove the positive and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

And for that, Atheism will never be complete to my eyes.

This'll sound rude but ... really, that doesn't count for much.

And as for a flying spaghetti monster, it can be drawn, and with ingenuity and craftsmanship, one can levitate a plate of spaghetti with evil eyes attached. And with the right person with the right phobia, it can be a "flying spaghetti monster". But if the concept did not exist, would you be able to conceptualize it in the first place?

You're not seeing that there is a HUGE difference between the concept and the actual thing existing. People have been conceptualising and even watching flying cars since cartoons like 'the Jetsons'. However, that certainly is no indication at all of whether or not flying bubble cars really exist.

Likewise, people can certainly conceptualise things such as various deities - Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, the Celestial Teapot, Baby Raptor Zombie Jesus - but it is absolutely zero indication that they are real.

I'm actually shocked that anyone could think otherwise.

[Matt]

Without bias, we are able to understand without clutter.

What is that even meant to mean? Are you trying to make a point or just get way past the 10 character minimum post limit?

Treating the trigger as a neutral agent assigns it no value, but acknowledges its place at the beginning of events. Like a zero.

Right ... and you have some sort of evidence that the beginning of the Universe wasn't the part of some natural process and was instead the work of some sort of creator/designer? Because right now, the best theories we have point to a natural process.

[KameTen]

Never said it was. However, I would dare say that the vast majority of Atheists are not ignorant of and support scientific theory.

Bold statement. People come in many flavors, and there are no assurances that the same flavor can be replicated the same way most of the time.



Why? You can not disprove a negative, at least not very easily, as shown by the oft-used example of having a dragon in the boot of your car.
"I have a dragon in the back of my car."
"No, you don't. Look, it's empty."
"It's shy and hiding. Once you look away, it'll show itself."

And what is the point of one man convincing another man that he has 20 cows if there is nothing to gain for it from that man? A trade is only worthwhile when both have something to gain and something to lose.


The burden of proof in any rational debate is always with those that are trying to prove the positive and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

We are dealing with concepts that already are so cluttered that finding an even playing field is hazardous for discussion. And when both sides have very little to offer, the worth of it all starts to diminish severely.


This'll sound rude but ... really, that doesn't count for much.


Differences are differences.


You're not seeing that there is a HUGE difference between the concept and the actual thing existing. People have been conceptualising and even watching flying cars since cartoons like 'the Jetsons'. However, that certainly is no indication at all of whether or not flying bubble cars really exist.

Likewise, people can certainly conceptualise things such as various deities - Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, the Celestial Teapot, Baby Raptor Zombie Jesus - but it is absolutely zero indication that they are real.

I'm actually shocked that anyone could think otherwise.

And what I am saying is that there was a means of offering a different option that was able to substitute these options, and in many cases, replace that option. For Zeus's wrath, we can substitute it with our knowledge of weather patterns and why they occur. For Odin, who's stories are far more contained and story-oriented, we substitute his acts with metaphors and an understanding of why the culture came to tell these stories.

If it can be done, then there must be a means that can supply the act. If it cannot be acquired in one way, then there must be another way.

[KameTen]

What is that even meant to mean? Are you trying to make a point or just get way past the 10 character minimum post limit?


The less we put our own opinions into our research, the more we are able to get out of it without running into problems which will hinder said research.

Strip away the potential problems, and you can get to the heart of the matter easier.

Right ... and you have some sort of evidence that the beginning of the Universe wasn't the part of some natural process and was instead the work of some sort of creator/designer? Because right now, the best theories we have point to a natural process.

I never said that there was a creator/designer involved in our creation. All I am trying to say is that there is a trigger which caused these events, and that I am trying not to assign it a positive or negative value. I don't know whether or not there was benevolence behind it all, or just dumb luck, so I try to keep it neutral.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I shall try.

The law of conservation of matter and energy state that neither can be created or destroyed, only transfered between the two states. In my interpretation of it, within our realm of existence, there cannot be a lack of something or an absence of something within, it must either be something or something else. The core of Atheism deals with non-existence, specifically the non-existence of a deity or series of deities. Because the belief itself does not offer a means of filling that space with an equal and plausible alternative, it would stand to say that what is being offered cannot occur as is perceived. Something has to fill the void that keeps things at a constant.

You're mixing terms here, in a serious way.

Athiesm has a very equal and plausible alternative to the "god" concept - the world is purely naturalistic.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The core within the concepts of a monotheistic deity deal with an entity that has and is capable of affecting all aspects of our existence either as an aspect in our contained existence or outside of it. The core of atheism states that such concepts or entities do not exist, but does not offer an alternative that can fulfill the role of said concept,

Here's your mistake right there. You are assuming that this concept is correct, and that thus something needs to fulfill that role. There's no logical reason for this assumption.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And you are asking me to accept that man can conceptualize a nothing and still have it remain as nothing. That zero is tangible and intangible at the same time.
We can conceptualize a lot of things. That doesn't make them so. It's called imagination. Hypothetical arguments, thought experiments. Hell, Rumbles. Arguments about whether or not Superman could beat Gladiator are interesting to those of a certain mindset, but they're arguments about *fictional concepts.* The fact that someone conceives of things does not make said things real as anything other than concepts.

If that is the case, than it should not be hard to find a human who is not a human at the same time.
Being able to conceive of something does not necessitate that said thing actually, physically exists. I can imagine what it would be like to have four arms without it being so.

[JeffreyWKramer]

And you do not get that if it did not exist, than you would have not been able to conceptualize it in the first place.

That's ridiculous. Do you believe that everything ever imagined - every event and character of fiction, every wild flight of fancy - actually exists? Because that's the logical equivalent of the argument you're making.

Gee, it's nice to know that that long-ago threesome with Michelle Pfeiffer and Kelly LeBrock actually occurred, rather than having just been a masturbation fantasy.

[KameTen]

You're mixing terms here, in a serious way.

Athiesm has a very equal and plausible alternative to the "god" concept - the world is purely naturalistic.

No it does not. The core belief of Atheism is that there is no such thing as the divine or supernatural, which is the one thing that Atheists are able to fully agree on, otherwise there are no guarantees nor assurances that Atheists will believe in the same thing or come to the same conclusions. A naturalistic viewpoint is no more a part of Atheism as is/are any of the scientific fields. They are additions that helps the individual reinforce their decision and their beliefs, but they are not behind the birth of an Atheistic viewpoint.

You have a naturalistic viewpoint that buffers your Atheism and gives it strength. Its not the other way around.

[KameTen]

Here's your mistake right there. You are assuming that this concept is correct, and that thus something needs to fulfill that role. There's no logical reason for this assumption.

Falsifiability. Without options to explore and the potential to replace the original option, then we grow stagnant in our ability to learn, refine, and grow.

If there was no options to replace the belief that Zeus threw lightning bolts from the sky, then we would not know and continue to pursue the knowledge pertaining to weather patters, lightning conditions and what causes them, or where lightning originates in the first place.

[KameTen]

We can conceptualize a lot of things. That doesn't make them so. It's called imagination. Hypothetical arguments, thought experiments. Hell, Rumbles. Arguments about whether or not Superman could beat Gladiator are interesting to those of a certain mindset, but they're arguments about *fictional concepts.* The fact that someone conceives of things does not make said things real as anything other than concepts.


But it does not stop the possibility of them as well. We may not be able to achieve them as they are within the comic, but it does not eliminate the possibility of them totally. We just need to find a new angle in which to approach the information we have now, and make the proper adjustments.


Being able to conceive of something does not necessitate that said thing actually, physically exists. I can imagine what it would be like to have four arms without it being so.

With the proper research and technology, the possibility of attaching two more arms is not out of our reach. Nanotechnology and prosthetics are already being pursued as a viable option compared to being physically disabled, and it would not take much to go towards the exploration of multi-limbed tasks and applications.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Falsifiability. Without options to explore and the potential to replace the original option, then we grow stagnant in our ability to learn, refine, and grow.

There are plenty of options to explore without making the false assumptions you make.

What you're doing here is stating truisms as if they somehow support your core argument, when they don't have anything to do with the core premises you suggest.

If there was no options to replace the belief that Zeus threw lightning bolts from the sky, then we would not know and continue to pursue the knowledge pertaining to weather patters, lightning conditions and what causes them, or where lightning originates in the first place.
But the point is, there were options - naturalistic explanation, in fact. Your assumption of the necessity of God for the world to be as it is is one completely without merit.

[KameTen]

That's ridiculous. Do you believe that everything ever imagined - every event and character of fiction, every wild flight of fancy - actually exists? Because that's the logical equivalent of the argument you're making.

Gee, it's nice to know that that long-ago threesome with Michelle Pfeiffer and Kelly LeBrock actually occurred, rather than having just been a masturbation fantasy.

I should have worded it better. The possibility of the existence creates the option of it being realized. Michelle Pfeiffer and Kelly LeBrock are tangible creatures that can be interacted with, and with proper persuasion, can be convinced to pursue a threesome. The only limitations are distance, tactics, and finding common ground. Only if either Michelle Pfeiffer, Kelly LeBrock, or the possibility of a threesome did not exist could you not pursue the option, because you would not know of the option or the people in the first place.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But it does not stop the possibility of them as well. We may not be able to achieve them as they are within the comic, but it does not eliminate the possibility of them totally. We just need to find a new angle in which to approach the information we have now, and make the proper adjustments.
You seem to be assuming that anything that can be conceived must be true. In the absence of any evidence for many concepts, it is wiser to presume they probably aren't true.

With the proper research and technology, the possibility of attaching two more arms is not out of our reach. Nanotechnology and prosthetics are already being pursued as a viable option compared to being physically disabled, and it would not take much to go towards the exploration of multi-limbed tasks and applications.
But, I'm conceiving of it right now, and it's not real now.

Are you seriously suggesting that somehow our conceiving of God might bring such an entity into existence? Because I assure you, I used to give a lot of thought to that particular threesome fantasy, and unfortunately, it never came to pass.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I should have worded it better. The possibility of the existence creates the option of it being realized.
I can make up stories that happened in the past. That doesn't retroactively change history.

Michelle Pfeiffer and Kelly LeBrock are tangible creatures that can be interacted with, and with proper persuasion, can be convinced to pursue a threesome. The only limitations are distance, tactics, and finding common ground. Only if either Michelle Pfeiffer, Kelly LeBrock, or the possibility of a threesome did not exist could you not pursue the option, because you would not know of the option or the people in the first place.

I can imagine doing things with people that don't exist... ones completely of my imagination.

The fact that some folk put on suits and such and pretend such things are real - furries, for example - doesn't mean there really are horny nympho catgirls and such.

Power exists. Entities exist. The fact that we can imagine that powerful entities such as Odin or God exist does not mean that they do, that they will or that they really can.

Despite your suggestion to the contrary, people can conceptualize things that do not and never will have real-world referents. I can wave and gesticulate and toss around bat's wings and toad eyes all I want, and I'm never going to perform magic, no matter how much I imagine doing so, because magic isn't real and spells don't work, even if I believe in them. The world isn't Jack Chick's DARK DUNGEONS (thankfully).

[KameTen]

There are plenty of options to explore without making the false assumptions you make.

What you're doing here is stating truisms as if they somehow support your core argument, when they don't have anything to do with the core premises you suggest.


But the point is, there were options - naturalistic explanation, in fact. Your assumption of the necessity of God for the world to be as it is is one completely without merit.

Atheism does not offer anything but the belief that there are no deities or supernatural entities in this world. There are no counterpoints within the belief that replace the concepts presented by theistic groups that are the result of the belief itself. It is the people who bring in outside sources to bolster the belief, the belief does not bolster the people. If there were an answer that could replace the concepts presented by theistic circles, then it would not resemble the core belief of Atheism, and would transform to something else.

You are twisting my words around.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Atheism does not offer anything but the belief that there are no deities or supernatural entities in this world. There are no counterpoints within the belief that replace the concepts presented by theistic groups that are the result of the belief itself.

Nor do there have to be any such counterpoints.

[KameTen]

You seem to be assuming that anything that can be conceived must be true. In the absence of any evidence for many concepts, it is wiser to presume they probably aren't true.


But, I'm conceiving of it right now, and it's not real now.

Are you seriously suggesting that somehow our conceiving of God might bring such an entity into existence? Because I assure you, I used to give a lot of thought to that particular threesome fantasy, and unfortunately, it never came to pass.

No. That with the possibility of an option, there must several options as well that can take its place with equal success. That with knowledge and the pursuit of it, we will be able to refine what we know, and with that we are able to replace the old with the new as we learn how it applies to this world.

[JeffreyWKramer]

No. That with the possibility of an option, there must several options as well that can take its place with equal success.

Where are you getting this "must"? What Guidebook to Reality did you draw this from?

You make a lot of unsupported assumptions.

[KameTen]

I can make up stories that happened in the past. That doesn't retroactively change history.



I can imagine doing things with people that don't exist... ones completely of my imagination.

The fact that some folk put on suits and such and pretend such things are real - furries, for example - doesn't mean there really are horny nympho catgirls and such.

Power exists. Entities exist. The fact that we can imagine that powerful entities such as Odin or God exist does not mean that they do, that they will or that they really can.

Despite your suggestion to the contrary, people can conceptualize things that do not and never will have real-world referents. I can wave and gesticulate and toss around bat's wings and toad eyes all I want, and I'm never going to perform magic, no matter how much I imagine doing so, because magic isn't real and spells don't work, even if I believe in them. The world isn't Jack Chick's DARK DUNGEONS (thankfully).

Magic and Science are identical to those who can't comprehend the how and why. "Power" is a catch-all word to describe terms and concepts that are not easy to describe. An entity is just something that interacts with something else. But if these things weren't possible in some way, would we be able to imagine it. I do not believe so.

At first we believed that lightning was thrown by an angry god. As time went on and we pursued knowledge of this world, we found a way to replace the concept of angry gods throwing lightning with something that was less god-like and more naturalistic. With all things, time, refinement, and the pursuit of higher learning will help us improve on what we know. But the option must exist in some shape or form, must have the potential to exist in some shape or form, and must be realized in some shape or form. To our ancestors, this would be conceived of as magic in some form. Just because it does not fit the initial form does not mean that it just doesn't fit.

[KameTen]

Nor do there have to be any such counterpoints.

Then what's the point of Atheism if it cannot add anything other than "gods and ghosts don't exist" to a discussion?

[Gingold]

Then what's the point of Atheism if it cannot add anything other than "gods and ghosts don't exist" to a discussion?

There's not a "point" to atheism. It is simply the lack of belief.

[Clint Barton]

Then what's the point of Atheism if it cannot add anything other than "gods and ghosts don't exist" to a discussion?

I keep flipping back between this thread and the Ask an Atheist thread. I'm thoroughly confused.

However, I'd surmise that the reasoning is to "elict intelligent debate between consenting adults. :confused: Just a guess, though. What do I know? I don't even know what to ask.

[KameTen]

Where are you getting this "must"? What Guidebook to Reality did you draw this from?

You make a lot of unsupported assumptions.

Why did single cell organisms split? Why can a person come about from two people, and retain an identity separate from those who helped to birth that person?

If the option for different options wasn't available, then change would not occur. We would just repeat the same process over and over in an endless cycle. That we are able to live and die in so many ways is a testament to possibility and shifting options.

[KameTen]

I keep flipping back between this thread and the Ask an Atheist thread. I'm thoroughly confused.

However, I'd surmise that the reasoning is to "elict intelligent debate between consenting adults. :confused: Just a guess, though. What do I know? I don't even know what to ask.

Have fun with it. Just be respectful.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Magic and Science are identical to those who can't comprehend the how and why.
Not true. The underlying assumptions of each are very different. The uninformed may mistake science for magic, but that doesn't mean the two are the same. Perception does not dictate reality. If I'm colorblind, that doesn't mean color doesnt exist. Bacteria existed long before we were capable of seeing them.

"Power" is a catch-all word to describe terms and concepts that are not easy to describe. An entity is just something that interacts with something else. But if these things weren't possible in some way, would we be able to imagine it. I do not believe so.
We can conceive of lots of unreal things which draw upon things which are real. Gryphons and hippogriffs and other such fantastic creatures, for example. Or superheroes. Or manga cat girls.

At first we believed that lightning was thrown by an angry god. As time went on and we pursued knowledge of this world, we found a way to replace the concept of angry gods throwing lightning with something that was less god-like and more naturalistic. With all things, time, refinement, and the pursuit of higher learning will help us improve on what we know. But the option must exist in some shape or form, must have the potential to exist in some shape or form, and must be realized in some shape or form. To our ancestors, this would be conceived of as magic in some form. Just because it does not fit the initial form does not mean that it just doesn't fit.
Poppycock. We replaced those "initial forms" of belief with others specifically *because* the initial forms "don't fit" with the facts.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Then what's the point of Atheism if it cannot add anything other than "gods and ghosts don't exist" to a discussion?

The point is to define a world view, as to what is real and what is not. That's a pretty essential thing.

[Clint Barton]

Have fun with it. Just be respectful.

Oh, I'm respectful. At least I attempt to be. I don't know anything much about a whole lot. But I know a little about everything relevant to me. Did that make sense? :cool: :D

Choosing the correct smilies can be difficult.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Why did single cell organisms split?
Becuase they were able to do so, and there were advantages to them doing so.

Why can a person come about from two people, and retain an identity separate from those who helped to birth that person?
Because identity is derived from much more than the mix of genetics inherited from the parents (much of which often includes genes which are not necessarily manifest in the parents, btw).

If the option for different options wasn't available, then change would not occur. We would just repeat the same process over and over in an endless cycle. That we are able to live and die in so many ways is a testament to possibility and shifting options.
How any of this supports your premises, I have no idea whatsoever.

[Night]

Pretty much everyone agrees that there was a trigger to the creation of the Universe as we know it. SpaceTime is indeed finite and evidence points that it all started at a single point. Not if you add all the dimensions M-theory does. Oh and M-Theory is not complete and it seems to be disputed on several levels.
You seem to be assuming that anything that can be conceived must be true. In the absence of any evidence for many concepts, it is wiser to presume they probably aren't true.No, he’s assuming that anything that can be conceived has the possibility of being true (or false for that matter). There is a difference. He has not put anything about probability. That is something you keep adding to the argument.The fact that some folk put on suits and such and pretend such things are real - furries, for example - doesn't mean there really are horny nympho catgirls and such. Oh come on. With man’s recent obsession with toying with DNA, and the obvious perversion there is for cat girls… how long do you really think it’ll take these before are created.Not true. The underlying assumptions of each are very different. The uninformed may mistake science for magic, but that doesn't mean the two are the same. Perception does not dictate reality. If I'm colorblind, that doesn't mean color doesnt exist. Bacteria existed long before we were capable of seeing them..Suppose we went back in time before we could see bacteria, and started telling what constituted as the “scientific community” of the time; all about bacteria and what you need to do to keep from getting sick from it. You’d likely get three responses:A: Sounds plausible. I’ll do what you say without scientific proof and cook my meat to proper temperature as well as wash my hands.

B: I don’t know if bacteria exists or not. I have no proof. Although this is a possible explanation, there are other explanations, so I'll remain skeptical.

C: You idiots. All you people are stupid. There’s no such thing as bacteria. I’ve never seen bacteria; therefore, it’s not natural and does not exist. So… which of these is the most scientific. Which is the least?

[Oke-Doke]

Two of my closest friends are Agnostic.

One is a very philosophical guy who is desperately curious, but does not know whether to believe in a deity or not.

The other simply doesn't give a shit whether a deity exists or not.

Agnostics on the boards, which of my friends is most similar to you?

Your first friend sounds alot like myself. My spiritual upbringing and observations of reality lead me to think more than just coincedence is at work sometimes, yet they also keep me from going so far as to belive there is a hidden diety governing the universe. Though I'm not completley neutral as I want to find evidence that there is a diety.

[KameTen]

Not true. The underlying assumptions of each are very different. The uninformed may mistake science for magic, but that doesn't mean the two are the same. Perception does not dictate reality. If I'm colorblind, that doesn't mean color doesnt exist. Bacteria existed long before we were capable of seeing them.


I did not say that they were the same. I said that they looked the same to those who did not understand the process behind them both. You are disagreeing with me now while we share a similar viewpoint.


We can conceive of lots of unreal things which draw upon things which are real. Gryphons and hippogriffs and other such fantastic creatures, for example. Or superheroes. Or manga cat girls.


And given proper time to explore the options, couldn't we find ways of replicating these things in some manner? And with further time and effort, find ways towards refining these things to better replicate these things without the clunky interface?


Poppycock. We replaced those "initial forms" of belief with others specifically *because* the initial forms "don't fit" with the facts.

We explored different options and found something that could fit the place of where the initial option first was. We started with Zeus and ended with weather patterns, because the options to learn about other options could be pursued. If other options did not exist that could fit and replace the original, then why would we consider something else the truth?

[KameTen]

The point is to define a world view, as to what is real and what is not. That's a pretty essential thing.

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=4581457&postcount=66

Atheism only states that there are no deities or supernatural elements in our world. As you have written, and as Matt has written as well, it does not need to offer anything else but that point. What is added to it, the ability to define a world view towards what is real and what is not, is a product of the person, not the belief. It is you who is adding this to the structure to boost its strength, not the belief.

Man's pursuit of knowledge of the world is not exclusive to Atheism, and should not be treated as such.

[Dan Apodaca]

Man's pursuit of knowledge of the world is not exclusive to Atheism, and should not be treated as such.

Not exclusive, essential. And it should be treated as such.

You seem intent on having a "mine is better than yours" fight. Who are you trying to convince?

[KameTen]

Not exclusive, essential. And it should be treated as such.


Why? All Atheism offers is the belief that there are no deities or supernatural figures existing in our world. Its been said by both Matt and JeffreyWKramer that Atheism does not need to offer anything else than its belief. Why should something with one premise and no need for alternatives be considered essential?


You seem intent on having a "mine is better than yours" fight. Who are you trying to convince?

The time I have spent here has been directly towards refuting claims of unsound thinking and reasoning. I am not here trying to convince anyone, just restating my beliefs and hopefully clarifying them for better consumption. Take what you will, or nothing at all.

[Dan Apodaca]

Why? All Atheism offers is the belief that there are no deities or supernatural figures existing in our world. Its been said by both Matt and JeffreyWKramer that Atheism does not need to offer anything else than its belief. Why should something with one premise and no need for alternatives be considered essential?

You're misunderstanding what I said. Man's pursuit of knowledge of the world is essential to atheism and should be treated as such.

Also, atheism is not a belief. Atheism is an understanding of the facts of the world, and the evidence to support them. Since the existence of a deity cannot be proven, it is not a fact. Therefore, there is no place or function for a deity in atheism.

[Chris Nowlin]

You're misunderstanding what I said. Man's pursuit of knowledge of the world is essential to atheism and should be treated as such.

Also, atheism is not a belief. Atheism is an understanding of the facts of the world, and the evidence to support them. Since the existence of a deity cannot be proven, it is not a fact. Therefore, there is no place or function for a deity in atheism.

Is that really the definition of atheism? Materialism or empiricism, maybe. Which tends to lead to atheism.

But I thought atheism was the disbelief in a deity. Period. Not sure anything else is essential to call yourself an atheist and fit within accepted usage of the word.

Hell, I think you can hate science and disbelieve every word of it and still be an atheist, as long as you also reject religion.

Or am I mixing up my terms here?

[KameTen]

You're misunderstanding what I said. Man's pursuit of knowledge of the world is essential to atheism and should be treated as such.

Also, atheism is not a belief. Atheism is an understanding of the facts of the world, and the evidence to support them. Since the existence of a deity cannot be proven, it is not a fact. Therefore, there is no place or function for a deity in atheism.

What you have described is attributed more to the sciences, less so to Atheism. The scientific fields mankind created are devoted to the understanding of our world through the gathering, processing, and eventual refinement of information. For those who are, the only criteria for calling one's self an Atheist is disbelief in deities and the supernatural. Nothing about it's central belief structure requires the individual pursue knowledge of the world, or provide scientific evidence of the absence of any deity or supernatural. Unless there is a dogma describing such a need for Atheists in order to maintain their status, it does not seem necessary.

As I've said to JeffreyWKramer, it is you who has brought this idea into the belief structure, not the belief itself. All the belief requires is disbelief towards a deity, nothing more.

Though, how do you define "belief", since you are assured that Atheism does not believe as much as it confirms?

[Sparda]

Two of my closest friends are Agnostic.

One is a very philosophical guy who is desperately curious, but does not know whether to believe in a deity or not.

The other simply doesn't give a shit whether a deity exists or not.

Agnostics on the boards, which of my friends is most similar to you?
Well I'm more like your first friend. I'm just not sure if there is a Deity or not and am open for possibilities. For all we know, the bible's and other forms of myth's greatly exaggerate a Deity's powers and is some alien with high science teck. Sounds absurd but who knows, I'm open for all possibilities and sometimes myth's can have some truth. (like the Trojan war or that Guirella's exist and such). Doubt I'll ever learn in my life time and will truly find out when I die. That's me, don't know about other Agnostics.

Any more questions? This thread just turned into a Anthiest vs Agnostics type which I'm not even going to bother to debate.

[KameTen]

Sorry about that.

[i_mmmchocolate]

Two of my closest friends are Agnostic.

One is a very philosophical guy who is desperately curious, but does not know whether to believe in a deity or not.

The other simply doesn't give a shit whether a deity exists or not.

Agnostics on the boards, which of my friends is most similar to you?
I'm curious and willing to learn, but I hate when people try to force their beliefs/ideals/etc on me- religious or otherwise.

EDIT: That said, I tend to avoid religious/anti-religious discussions.

[Sam T.]

Maybe this is the reason these type of dicussions shouldn't be on these Boards!!

[Chris Nowlin]

Maybe this is the reason these type of dicussions shouldn't be on these Boards!!

What is?

In general, it doesn't matter what discussions are here. People may choose to ignore some.

[Sam T.]

The Agnostics are clashing with the Atheists...its a whole big mess!!

[Tages]

Maybe this is the reason these type of dicussions shouldn't be on these Boards!!

You're quite a character. First, you complain that people aren't allowing you to express your views on the Ask an Atheist thread. Now, people shouldn't be allowed to express their views on this one.

Do I sense shades of Deathlok?

[Chris Nowlin]

Do I sense shades of Deathlok?

Typhoid Mary came to my mind

[Sam T.]

You're quite a character. First, you complain that people aren't allowing you to express your views on the Ask an Atheist thread. Now, people shouldn't be allowed to express their views on this one.

Do I sense shades of Deathlok?

This is not even true at all! I'm just seeing there is a lot of hostility on the boards lately...maybe people should just talk comics!!

[Sam T.]

Deathlok?? Its not really fair to compare me to someone else!

[Chris Nowlin]

This is not even true at all! I'm just seeing there is a lot of hostility on the boards lately...maybe people should just talk comics!!

Talking comics is a lot of fun. Why I came here. And it's a good idea. So from now on, just pretend there are no non-comics threads. No reason to post in stupid religion threads. No reason to even notice them.

[Tages]

Is that really the definition of atheism? Materialism or empiricism, maybe. Which tends to lead to atheism.

But I thought atheism was the disbelief in a deity. Period. Not sure anything else is essential to call yourself an atheist and fit within accepted usage of the word.

Hell, I think you can hate science and disbelieve every word of it and still be an atheist, as long as you also reject religion.

Or am I mixing up my terms here?

Atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of deities. But each culture tends to attach its own specific baggage to it. Atheism in Britain and America is in the empiricist and positivist tradition, so it tends to hitch its wagon to philosophical materialism and skepticism.

Atheism outside of the English-speaking world has a much different flavor, something many don't realize. In say, India or France it is very, very different.

[Tages]

Typhoid Mary came to my mind

Deathlok was before your time. I'll give you the Reader's Digest version.

"Quebecois separatists deserve to be lined against the wall and shot for trying to break up Canada!"

(Three days later)

"The rest of Canada is exploiting Alberta, we should secede at once!"

[Tages]

This is not even true at all!

Really?

Then how do you reconcile this (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=4595475&postcount=3880)...

Am I not allowed to state my opinion on here?? This is a Forum right??

...with this (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=4600487&postcount=91)?

Maybe this is the reason these type of dicussions shouldn't be on these Boards!!

[Tages]

Deathlok?? Its not really fair to compare me to someone else!

Is there some reason you punctuate every sentence with an excalamation point!

It's very annoying!

Do you talk like this in real life!

[Sam T.]

Is there some reason you punctuate every sentence with an excalamation point!

It's very annoying!

Do you talk like this in real life!


No I don't talk like that in real life. Just getting my point across!! :D

[Mike Smash!]

No I don't talk like that in real life. Just getting my point across!! :D

Here's a hint. If you want to make a point, pretend that you're talking to someone. Don't put multiple question marks or exclamation points at the end of sentences or use emoticons unless your statement would be misinterpreted without one.

And stop just yelling random, irrelevant things just because you can. It makes you look dumb.

[Dennis K]

Dear agnostic,

Is Agnositicism influenced more by not knowing or not caring?


The answer is self-evident

[Dennis K]

Dear Agnostic, do you really have nothing better to do with your time than answer random questions about religion over the internet?


Of course I do

[Tages]

Dear agnostic,

Is Agnositicism influenced more by not knowing or not caring?

Agnosticism is, by its dictionary definition, not knowing. Not caring has a separate term attached, ignosticism, when the relative existence or nonexistence of a God or gods is considered simply unimportant.

"It is important to be able to distinguish hemlock from parsley, but to believe or not believe in God is not important at all."-Denis Diderot

Alternately, ignosticism can stand in for the philosophical idea of theological noncognitivism, which states that we have no idea if there's a God or not because we haven't decided on what the term means.

"I am an ignostic, for I do not understand what the theist is talking about. I cannot say whether or not such a being exists since I do not comprehend what is being asserted."-Paul Kurtz

Our own CBR member and Everyone's Favorite Poster Ed Cunard describes himself as an ignostic.

[Dreadstar]

...maybe people should just talk comics!!

You should take your own advice, methinks...

[JeffreyWKramer]

The Agnostics are clashing with the Atheists...its a whole big mess!!

So, tell us your thoughts about the most recent EIGHTBALL. Or TAROT. Or BETTY AND VERONICA, or whatever you read.

[Ed Cunard]

Our own CBR member and Everyone's Favorite Poster Ed Cunard describes himself as an ignostic.

Only after you introduced me to this wonderful word. I'd say, if I had to pin myself down, that I'm an atheist in practice, and an ignostic in motivation.

[Ed Cunard]

So, tell us your thoughts about the most recent EIGHTBALL. Or TAROT. Or BETTY AND VERONICA, or whatever you read.

Define "read."

[Sam T.]

Define "read."

I read quite a bit , thank you! Now continue talking about the Agnostics...

[i_mmmchocolate]

Agnosticism is, by its dictionary definition, not knowing. Not caring has a separate term attached, ignosticism, when the relative existence or nonexistence of a God or gods is considered simply unimportant.
Exactly. I really hate it when the 'not caring' crowd are lumped in as agnostics.

[Agent Helix]

I'm an Ignatztic.

I believe in hitting a cat with a brick.

[Ed Cunard]

I'm an Ignatztic.

I believe in hitting a cat with a brick.

I love you.

[Agent Helix]

I love you.

Then there IS a god!

[Merey]

Two of my closest friends are Agnostic.

One is a very philosophical guy who is desperately curious, but does not know whether to believe in a deity or not.

The other simply doesn't give a shit whether a deity exists or not.

Agnostics on the boards, which of my friends is most similar to you?

I'm a mix of both. Through college and up until two years ago I studied comparative religion (even took a course on Atheism) through both my university and the Unitarian church. I've always studied it more from detached academic standpoint. However, at the same time, I also considered myself spiritual and enjoyed how the UU church fulfilled that need to exam and explore that undefined spirituality. Two years ago I stopped going to church. I stopped more because of the community and how I felt ideologically out-of-place, but since then I really haven't felt that burning curiosity to try to understand all the world's religions, nor have I needed to explore my spirituality more at this point of time. I guess I'm just taking a sabbatical of sorts. I'm not exactly apathetic, I'm just okay right now with the knowledge and understanding I've gained up to this point.

[jessecuster3]

I'm listening

Dear Agnostic,

Did Scott Norwood make you question the existence of God?



Sincerely,
Sorry for all those SB losses.

[Slam_Bradley]

I'm an Ignatztic.

I believe in hitting a cat with a brick.


That made me chuckle.

[Dennis K]

Dear Agnostic,

Did Scott Norwood make you question the existence of God?



Sincerely,
Sorry for all those SB losses.



Yes. Thank you for asking.