[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]
If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?[/quote]
It is technically not a religion but its followers are indeed religious in their fervor to promote their belief in unbelief. They have a core set of beliefs that are taken on faith. They are in fact religious.
As to the second question maybe you might want to address that one. You tell me.[/quote]
I am partially with you on this one. So, would you say that agnosticism is a religion?
[/quote]
“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice” ~ Rush[/quote]
Yes. However, that choice is not the same as saying that there is no god. It’s being truthful and admitting that you don’t know. Atheism is a different animal. In that case, you are making the same mistake; saying that you know something for sure that’s impossible to know. It’s important to realize the difference between agnosticism and atheism and to not bunch agnostics in with atheists. To do so is just ignorant.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]
If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?[/quote]
It is technically not a religion but its followers are indeed religious in their fervor to promote their belief in unbelief. They have a core set of beliefs that are taken on faith. They are in fact religious.
As to the second question maybe you might want to address that one. You tell me.[/quote]
I am partially with you on this one. So, would you say that agnosticism is a religion?
[/quote]
…
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive
Gnosticism goes on what you know while theism goes on what you believe.
if you are not claiming any knowledge you are an agnostic.
If you reject all god claims you are an atheist.
If you hold these 2 positions (as most atheists do) you are an agnostic atheist.
[/quote]
You can’t both say you know for sure that there is no god while saying that you don’t know for sure. Most people ARE NOT both. I, for instance, associate with atheist culture, but I don’t think that there’s any way to know for sure like some of them claim. Therefore, I am agnostic, not atheist, not even part atheist. [/quote]
Here let me paste this for you, perhaps I’m not explaining it well. But you are an athiest
Q: What’s the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a “theist” is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an “atheist” is one who does not have a belief in the god. A “gnostic” is one who knows about the existence of god and an “agnostic” is one who thinks that god is unknowable.
Notice that the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don’t think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don’t choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn’t strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an “untheist”, perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a “gnostic atheist”, one who doesn’t believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.
So there are four possible ways one could be.
Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable
Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge
Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can’t be proved
Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist
Case 3 is sometimes referred to as “weak atheism” and case 4 is sometimes referred to as “strong atheism”. Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.
Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can’t positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist.
[/quote]
Let me paste for you the actual definitions of atheist and agnostic, according to merriam-webster. I speak English. I don’t know what you’re pulling your definitions from, but lets stick to the officially agreed on English ones, ok?
1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-Ë?näs-tik, É?g-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Definition of ATHEIST
athe·ist noun \Ë?Ä?-thÄ?-ist
: one who believes that there is no deity
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Atheism is a different animal. In that case, you are making the same mistake; saying that you know something for sure that’s impossible to know…[/quote]
Ahem. Not sure where I saw this said before. Nope. /whistles, pretending to be casual.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]
If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?[/quote]
It is technically not a religion but its followers are indeed religious in their fervor to promote their belief in unbelief. They have a core set of beliefs that are taken on faith. They are in fact religious.
As to the second question maybe you might want to address that one. You tell me.[/quote]
I am partially with you on this one. So, would you say that agnosticism is a religion?
[/quote]
…
Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive
Gnosticism goes on what you know while theism goes on what you believe.
if you are not claiming any knowledge you are an agnostic.
If you reject all god claims you are an atheist.
If you hold these 2 positions (as most atheists do) you are an agnostic atheist.
[/quote]
You can’t both say you know for sure that there is no god while saying that you don’t know for sure. Most people ARE NOT both. I, for instance, associate with atheist culture, but I don’t think that there’s any way to know for sure like some of them claim. Therefore, I am agnostic, not atheist, not even part atheist. [/quote]
Here let me paste this for you, perhaps I’m not explaining it well. But you are an athiest
Q: What’s the difference between an atheist and an agnostic?
A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a “theist” is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an “atheist” is one who does not have a belief in the god. A “gnostic” is one who knows about the existence of god and an “agnostic” is one who thinks that god is unknowable.
Notice that the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don’t think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don’t choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn’t strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an “untheist”, perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a “gnostic atheist”, one who doesn’t believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.
So there are four possible ways one could be.
Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable
Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge
Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can’t be proved
Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist
Case 3 is sometimes referred to as “weak atheism” and case 4 is sometimes referred to as “strong atheism”. Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.
Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can’t positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist.
[/quote]
Let me paste for you the actual definitions of atheist and agnostic, according to merriam-webster. I speak English. I don’t know what you’re pulling your definitions from, but lets stick to the officially agreed on English ones, ok?
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Definition of ATHEIST
athe�?�·ist noun \�??�??-th�??-ist
: one who believes that there is no deity[/quote]
I posted the contemporary definition used by atheists and atheists organizations today. Sorry you’re an atheist.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]
If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?[/quote]
It is technically not a religion but its followers are indeed religious in their fervor to promote their belief in unbelief. They have a core set of beliefs that are taken on faith. They are in fact religious.
As to the second question maybe you might want to address that one. You tell me.[/quote]
I am partially with you on this one. So, would you say that agnosticism is a religion?
[/quote]
“If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice” ~ Rush[/quote]
Yes. However, that choice is not the same as saying that there is no god. It’s being truthful and admitting that you don’t know. Atheism is a different animal. In that case, you are making the same mistake; saying that you know something for sure that’s impossible to know. It’s important to realize the difference between agnosticism and atheism and to not bunch agnostics in with atheists. To do so is just ignorant.[/quote]
Atheists are not claiming to KNOW god doesn’t exist. This is a common misconception.
They just reject all god claims until they meet their burden of proof.
I post you the merriam-webster definition and you respond with some guy’s opinion? My opinion is that this guy is groping and changing the established definitions to suit his purposes. As his definition hasn’t ended up in the official dictionary, I’m not buying it.
He’s going around in circles:
Thus, there are only two possible outcomes to our investigation - yes this god exists, or no this god does not exist. The first is (one of the many types of) Theism, and the second is Atheism. These two positions represent the poles of the spectrum of belief. In fact they are the only two points on that spectrum. Either you believe in god(s) and are a Theist, or you do not believe in god(s) and are an Atheist. So Agnosticism does not and cannot belong on this spectrum, let alone ‘in between’ the theistic and atheistic points.
It is now apparent that Agnosticism is in a different dimension (the methodological dimension) than both Atheism and Theism. Atheism and Theism are positions, but Agnosticism is a process. In what dimension do Atheism and Theism dwell? The most common answer would be the dimension of ‘belief.’ Now we are back on familiar ground. Theism is the belief (or one of the many beliefs) in god(s), and Atheism is the belief in no god(s). However, as I have argued elsewhere and will continue to argue, this is wrong: Atheism is not a “belief” at all. Theism is a belief in the sense that you must stand your theistic ground - must make the claim of the truth of your ‘religious knowledge’ - without the aid of solid evidence or logic; it is accepting something as true without confirming evidence or even in the face of disconfirming evidence. It is acceptance of a knowledge claim in disregard or contradiction to the ‘agnostic method.’ Atheism, conversely, is the (sound) conclusion that any such knowledge claim is false, completely and necessarily in compliance with the agnostic method. As I have stressed before, when there is firm evidence, valid logic, and sound conclusion, there is knowledge - and no need to appeal or refer to belief whatsoever.
Congrats. You found an atheist making a claim that he isn’t believing in anything and that not believing in anything is the definition of atheism.
That’s not the way the rest of the world uses those words, so I don’t see the point of me starting to.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< No, it’s because you can’t argue stuff like that and expect a response that isn’t about God. You can’t fight people like that because it will always be a case of they are right and you are wrong because they have God on their side and you don’t. And when you ask them to take God out of the equation, they insist they cannot because there is no life or morality without God. [/quote]Hey! Not bad. I’ll own that thanks. God is the ground of all being and existence and not just any ol vanilla theistic God either. You demonstrate His truth with every breath you take. I won’t even talk about 2+2=4 without God because it’s entirely unthinkable to the heart renewed by the risen Christ. Actually it’s unthinkable to everybody which is why they are constantly stealing His capital to finance their campaigns against Him.
If there is no infallible supra human court beyond which there is no appeal then all else is meaningless. You don’t like meaninglessness so you concoct artificial significance built on your own idolatrous fantasies. How well I know. I did it myself the first 20 years of my life. Watch, the one person I will get no substantive response from is your infantacidal compatriot Oleena who started thread. She jist luuuuvs them groovy “articles”.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:<<< Yes, I would agree that complete objectivity is impossible. You can’t look at something without being colored by your life. Now, you can look at both sides of a topic equally and call that objectivity but you can’t make a decision about something without your life coloring it.[/quote]All right that does it. New thread on the way.
I post you the merriam-webster definition and you respond with some guy’s opinion? My opinion is that this guy is groping and changing the established definitions to suit his purposes. As his definition hasn’t ended up in the official dictionary, I’m not buying it.[/quote]
Tell me, what do you think merriam-webster definition is? It’s ALSO an opinion. The difference here is I posted a link from American Atheists.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
That’s not the way the rest of the world uses those words, so I don’t see the point of me starting to.
[/quote]
Actually it is. This is your problem, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do some research on the term “agnostic atheist.” Maybe you have some sort of sticking point calling yourself an atheist and that’s why you’re arguing this so vehemently.
"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a â??third wayâ?? between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge â?? it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.
Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism."
“Obviously, based on these definitions, the terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. One can be an agnostic atheist, meaning someone who doesn’t claim to know whether or not a god exists (agnostic) but doesn’t find belief to be justified by evidence or argument (atheist). Other ways in which the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist and theist can be combined are discussed below.”
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Almost no one today claims to KNOW there is no god. That would be an equally irrational position as a theist.
You really think this atheist movement is based on people claiming to KNOW there is no god?[/quote]
I tried to point out this very problem when a hypothetical was posed to me. I had to point out that not even most atheists try to make such a claim. It’s impossible to even contemplate having the sort of knowledge (absolute certainty), truthfully. Some make the claim, regardless. But they’re immediately stuck having to defend choosing an unfalsifiable position. The atheists who’ve actually thought about their position, or have at least been in a scrap, know as much.
I tried, and tried. But noooooooo, when a theist says something…
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Are you a rabid America hating secularist totally engrossed, and enthralled for that matter, in the religion of atheism and an avid evangelist on its behalf, ephrem? [/quote]
If atheism is a religion, then what is not a religion? And is it possible to believe in a god and not have a religion?[/quote]
It is technically not a religion but its followers are indeed religious in their fervor to promote their belief in unbelief. They have a core set of beliefs that are taken on faith. They are in fact religious.
As to the second question maybe you might want to address that one. You tell me.[/quote]
So the problem is, atheists who promote their beliefs don’t have a word to describe themselves other than atheist which creates confusion on it being a religion or not.[/quote]
What?[/quote]
Room A: Full of atheists who want to promote their ideas to the world, any atheist posting in this forum would be here.
Room B: Full of atheists who simply don’t believe in god and don’t push their views on others, they didn’t even know that everyone else in the room are also atheist.
So you are saying “Room A” is a religion and “Room B” is not?
