You can't be simply agnostic. You are either an Agnostic Theist or an Agnostic Atheist (assuming you consider yourself agnostic). edit: in most cases you can assume that the average theist is not agnostic, and I would hope every single atheist is.. if I saw evidence of religion, I sure as hell wouldn't be an atheist.. I'm an atheist because I do not believe in God, as such evidence does not exist (I swear to god, if someone links a made up scientific study that says they found jesus' robe or something, it will be self evident that you are mentally challenged.) edit2: to the discussion whether atheism is a religion: it's not. Is theism a religion? Fuck no. Atheism is a label for people who do not believe in God. I will admit that "new atheists" tend to be edging into religious territory with their "atheist commandments" and shit like that, but a) that is not a religion, more of a movement similar to a political party or ideology and b) this is irrelevant because just because they happen to be atheists doesn't mean the definition of the word changes.
Well I've been trying for 3 pages now, so I doubt I'll be successful anytime soon but, Everybody, if they're alive and cognitive, has a religion. The fact is nobody knows anything. Humans exist without purpose, as far as humans are concerned, because our minds are limited to our minds. If religion is the beliefs one uses to live their life by, and somebody has no religion, then how do they live their life? By their own morals and values, making themselves their god. Their religious structure is lack of structure. Their church is their planet, their prayers are silence. Is yin not yang? You can't escape it because no matter what you believe, even if it's nothing, it's still something. Why else would nihilism have a definition?
Religion OFTEN includes a set of principles, but that is not the definition of a religion. A religion is a set of beliefs in a supernatural being (ie Santa Claus) Deciding your own morals and values versus having a group of farmers who wrote a book 2000 years ago decide them for me. The bible is probably the worst set of morals and values you could find in North America to live by. edit: it basically comes down to, if atheism was a religion, then theism would be as well.
That's the thing...I don't live my life by any beliefs because I don't know what is the truth and what is not....I live day by day and deal with whatever comes along. I am not my own God. I treat people with respect because I want to be treated with respect...not because some belief or religion told me to. I have a hard time debating with people on here because so many of you are smarter than I am...in a book sense....all these big words and what-not confuse me...you're talking to a 41 yr old woman with a 9th grade education here...lol... However....here's what I found Religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^You're 41 and are on a marijuana message board, and using wikipedia. My mom can't do anything on a computer besides play solitaire, I'd say your intelligence is quite on par. Books and words are only mediums for ideas, the ideas are what matters. I'm already taking issue with this. What do you mean for me to get from the article? Thank you for dropping that word though, I wiki'd it and came upon 'Infinitism' and am now saddened to know I didn't think of it myself.
LOL...Oh...I play a lot of solitaire And, 9 times out of 10, when I'm on here (Grasscity), I'm stoned I'm a real fast learner, though. Just didn't feel the need to stay in school and learn anymore cause when I was 14, I knew everything Just like all the other 14 yr olds in the world...lol Actually, my kid taught me how to use the computer and I just keep teaching myself more and more everyday. It's funny cause when my kid used to get mad at me, he would threaten me with "I won't help you on that computer no more"...HaHa! Guess what, Son! I don't need your help no more I do, however, have major problems understanding large words and being able to debate with people on an intelligent scale, but, I get what your saying...Thank you
If one believes in God and it has produced a positive change in their life not productive by any other belief, that belief is useful, but not necessarily true. Subjective beliefs can only be judged based upon how useful they are - as such, belief in God passes the test of being a useful subjective belief. That isn't to say that the existence of God isn't objective as well. Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Your characterization of God as an entity is a testament to your inability to conceptualize the idea of God through anything but the narrow lens of religion... you think you're an atheist but really all you can do is point out the various inconsistencies in the flawed institution of religion. Again, more rhetoric that is specifically anti-religion, rather than a logical refutation of the existence of the ultimate good or a cause of the universe outside of space/time. Well, I can see why it would be easy for you to believe that since the physical is a perfect reflection of the spiritual. You think believers are stupid because it's so apparent to you that everything has a physical explanation, as it, with a few exceptions, indeed does. The believer on the other hand can't call the atheist stupid since he realizes how easy and seemingly logical it is to descend into a solely materialistic world view. Being deceived is easy, finding the truth is more difficult. The only thing that refutes is the belief that the bearded God sitting in the clouds used his magical wand to instantly create shit. What about those of us who think all religious texts have validity as well as deception? What you're saying only applies to people who make the mistake of subscribing to a single religion and then following it dogmatically. Religion is a man made institution and men are fallible - why would you believe your group of men knows more than the next? Atheism is not a religion, but still requires evidence to support your belief: "God does not exist." This proclamation of knowledge is the atheist belief. You are claiming to know something. Doesn't knowledge always require evidence? The agnostic does not require evidence to support his absence of belief. Atheism does however, since it is not the absence of belief, but instead the belief that God does not exist. So? The bible is still a great allegory full of great truths communicable in the only way possible - through metaphor. I guess for you only non-fiction literature has meaning.
That's called the scientific method. I disagree. I do not wish to speak for Zarlak in this, but I see those inconsistencies as reasons not to believe in god. I see it this way, children have imaginary friends. I have no proof that they do not exist, but inconsistencies in their representation reinforce my skepticism. However, I do not define myself as a disbeliever of imaginary friends. That is not my religion. Says who/what? Your belief? What possible proof could you have to present that would describe this reflection? Why don't other people believe this? You are using your faith in a logical manner, which is not consistent with rationality. Keep your faith out of my logic. Unless you can provide empirical evidence, it is just faith. That's fine, but it isn't an arguing point any more than me suggesting that the sky over china is red. It's just an idea. I disagree, there are some excellent ideas in the Christian bible. Not killing? I'll live by that. Not stealing? That one too. Hell, I love the idea of only the person without sin casting the first stone. There are some excellent ideas that pertain to modern life perfectly, it is their belief that a God is required to enforce these ideas that I take issue with. edward, I agree that most of our discussion is in regards to singular organized religions. It is a matter of necessity. I personally have neither the time nor the desire to examine your ideas and argue them specifically. I choose to believe that there is no god for the same reason I choose to believe that it is a warp in space time that causes gravity rather than a magical instantaneous force. Call it a theory if you prefer, but it is my opinion that no gods exist due to a lack of evidence. My evidence to the contrary is quite overwhelming. I choose to put forth nature and physics. If there was a god, why are the laws of physics so invariable? Why do the laws that govern our world the same that govern worlds on the other side of the galaxy; the other side of the universe? It is the consistency in nature that causes me to not believe in a god. If one were to exist, he would have to be purely an observer, in which case, I see no reason to bother worshiping or acknowledging. I see no miracles that cannot be described by science. No burning bushes. No parted seas. No angels. I apologize for using the Christian ideology for my examples so often, but those are the ideas that I am most familiar with. Ideology. That is a nice world. If I would define atheism as anything, I'd call it an ideology: a set of ideas. Also, edward, you fall into the same pit as so many other religions. Why is it your beliefs that are correct and that it is ALL the others that are making the mistake? How can you be so sure? Faith? Again, keep your faith out of my rationality. You have no more proof of your ideas than a Hindu or a Jew, save faith. Faith is a gentle breeze for which I have no sails. I was made to coast under the power of more tangible things. Materialistic? Perhaps, but it is those things that I can taste and touch that effect me the most, why choose to sail to the tune of an imagined breeze and suggest that it is superior?
Are you absolutely serious? I wished to refrain from this, but you seem to be a child who doesn't want to go to the dentist, dragging your feet in the dirt. You continue to point at things and call them "religion" as a child points at things and proclaims his ownership. I have no desire to argue with you any further, given your manner of argumentation and grating nature. Have fun with that religion thing.
You are taking issue with the study of the knowledge of knowledge? Wiki says nothing about it other than what it is. I suggest Ayn Rand's "Objectivist Epistomology". It's short but should firm up your basis for reality, I think you have a chance at becoming a good and rational person since you are already questioning normal conventional (willfully ignorant) wisdom. Bravo. BTW, I mean good and rational- not atheist, I could care less what you want to name it. I say this because you like to play semantics. Of course, I do believe that if you developed a fully rational basis for reality you would not believe in gods; "a-theism". Again, before you take that specific statement out of context, which you seem to be good at, read on epistomology. I do hate over-clarifying myself.... oh well.
How do you figure that one? Written religions are man's attempt at communicating knowledge of the unseen. Certainly because we aren't perfect religions written entirely by men wouldn't be perfect either. To expect perfection in religious texts is ridiculous. How can I provide empirical evidence for the existence of something not physical? Er, I'm not really sure what to say here. I have no clue why you think consistency in nature implies the non-existence of God. If anything I would argue the contrary, and ask how an intelligent designer couldn't exist with the existence of consistent, purposeful laws that govern the physical universe. "The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood." No he wouldn't. If God is everything there exists no perspective from which to observe. By holding them up to the light of human reason.
the literary term "pun" must not be your strongest asset... i wont explain it but i will just let you know that it would be funny if you understood it.
I got the pun.... laughed... read all of the argument over if the Atheist themselves is the prophet and replied. I was trying to convey: I don't think that the atheist is the prophet, because if there is no word of god there is no prophet. It was a good pun, and it caused an interesting debate IMO.