[Guest]

Any person can comment on this post, but it's geared towards Christians (Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.) Anyone can post the first subject of conversation. Just discuss issues about the religion (Heaven, evangelism,etc.)

[Guest]

ADPArker i refute the agnostic-athiest label.

Well labels are a matter of taste. For instance one may be, by definition, an atheist, but prefer not to use the label. That's fine, but doesn't change the facts.

I do not disbelieve in god nor do I believe there is no god.

If one takes the broad definition of "disbelieve" which simply means that one does not have the belief, then you have just violated a basic law of logic; one can not neither believe nor not-believe (disbelieve) any more than one can be neither P nor Not-P.

But taking it that you mean that you neither believe that gods exist, nor believe that gods do not exist, then by definition:

1. As you do not believe in the existence of gods, then you are not a theist, you are an atheist (by definition remember, call yourself what you will.)

2. As you do not claim to know ether that gods exist or do not exist (if you believe neither then neither do you think that you know, obviously) then you are not a Gnostic (one who is of the conviction that they know.) You are an Agnostic

Hence; an Agnostic-Atheist.

You don't choose that as a label? Then don't use it, simple as that. But by your own words you confirm that your position does fit within the confines of that label nonetheless.

By way of example on the labelling thing: I may well fit within the definition cooked up by those who have coined and taken on the "Bright" label, but I have absolutely zero interest in calling myself that any time soon!

I believe we cannot know.

That is a well known position.

If I recall correctly it might be the position I called "Gnostic-Agnostic" (which should in the case of us non-believers be lengthened to "Gnostic-Agnostic-Atheist" - the point was definitions/categorisations, not labels, so the clunkiness of it matters not.)

Ah yes, I found the definition set I wrote on my hard drive:

THEISM: Belief in the existence of God(s). 

A-THEISM: Not a 'Belief in the existence of God(s)'. OR: Absence of belief in deities. (note: not necessarily a denial in existence of God(s), although this is included) 

A-GNOSTICISM: Absence of Certainty, usually applied in regards to Gods/spirituality and religion. 

GNOSTICISM: Certainty, or belief that one has knowledge 


To sum up: 

Theist: I Believe in God (or such and such deity or deities) 

Atheist: I do not Believe in God (or such and such deity or deities) 

Gnostic: I am certain (God exists, but can apply to any claim of knowledge) 

Agnostic: I am not certain (God exists, but can apply to any claim of knowledge) 


There are two types (sub-sets) of each of these positions:

Theist --1. Gnostic-Theist = I am certain God exists. 

----------2. Agnostic-Theist = I think/believe God exists. (open to debate) 


Atheist --1. Gnostic-Atheist = I am certain God does not exist. 

-----------2. Agnostic-Atheist = I have no God beliefs, or I think/believe God does not exist, or I see reason to believe God exists. (Any non-belief without hard claim of certainty)


Funnily enough Agnosticism seems to have an Agnostic and Gnostic type as well:

Agnostic --1. Agnostic-Agnostic (or just Agnostic) = I am not sure if God exists or not. (50/50, no idea or no interest in the question of god) 

-------------2. Gnostic-Agnostic = It is impossible to know if God exists or not, there can be no conclusive evidence either way; the position that one cannot know the answer. 

Note: both forms of 'pure' agnosticism are technically atheistic, as they hold no belief in any gods (nor any for the non-existence either of course, so atheist due to a lack of belief)


Gnostic -- Has no other separate sub-types, summed up in those above.

[Quag]

1. As you do not believe in the existence of gods, then you are not a theist, you are an atheist (by definition remember, call yourself what you will.)

You misunderstand me I do not disbelieve in the existence of god(s)

a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled

[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Either you disagree with this definition of atheism or you misunderstand my point of view. I do not dibelieve in god, I just dont know. That is Agnosticism. When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve it is just my way of saying I dont know. What I believe is that the belief or disbelief in god is irrelevant. I do however Disbelieve in the christian view of god, that doesnt make me atheist just non christian. Though I must admit most christians confuse the two and are convinced that if you do not believe in their version of god you are an atheist, or at least the ones that I know. Ie. my in-laws.

[Guest]

Just came across this the other day - thought this was very interesting......try and make it to the 3rd one........ some of you will appreciate I am sure!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdrLYipYjS0

Again, try to at least look at all 3 before you debunk them.

Edited April 14, 2011 by hambone

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpDhuTTKCfQ

[Guest]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjAKJzfmbIU

[peace*out]

#1:

sorry for the late reply. by chargers broken and ive had to borrow around for the few minutes i can grab.

1.Claiming to KNOW either gods existence or non existence is the height of hubris. Point I was trying to make was thet it is rather arrogant to claim to KNOW something that is inherently unknowable. You can BELIEVE but not KNOW, seems people often confuse the two.

arrogant? have you called anyone else arrogant or just me so far? Is ADParker arrogant?PLEASE quote these posts where you call them arrogant, because i want to be wrong and know you share your accusations evenly. Find. I believe. Does that make me any less arrogant? I strongly believe. And as far as i could tell, that wasnt exactly your point. It's your point when i get confused, but your point seems that its stupid to 100% believe in god. Not that its stupid to 100% believe there ISNT a god. My point is that you dont seem to by fighting neutrally, even though you claim thats your position.

The seeing a house and thus you know it was built by someone is an old arguement used by creationists. rather than go into it again i just dismissed it. sorry if i was cavalier didnt try and paint you as an idiot. but it is a falacious arguement.

then say that instead of trying to mix up my words. i know you didnt mean to, but at the same time, it happened and i knew if i was reading/writing this from my ACTUAL point of view (peace - yah know, agnostic-athiest thing) i would think that person is stupid. trees and houses and WHAT? Or maybe it did just sound stupid. I dont know.

oh and the "hight of hubris" part - it wasnt that i was confused by your metaphor, its that i dont know what the metaphor even means!! what is hubris????

I am not trying to confuse I am actually trying to enlighten. There is no proof of god and no proof of lack of god. All people who claim to have proof really have nothing. Please go back and reread the proof of god thread if you want elaboration.

again: why do you constantly reply to my posts and make you seem neutral when you only reply to my posts?

2.Science best theory ATM is the big bang and there could have been an infinite number of big bangs. Last time I checked they were still debating whether the universe will continually expand or eventually recollapse on it self. Point is they admit it is a theory and so far it fits best with our limited understanding. Religion on the other hand claims to KNOW, there is a big difference.

Yes. Yes yes. I know. But the point is life must have a beggining. there is a timeline or when life began. the world i believe has a beginning. And truthfully, we have to battle as if we know because many atheists battle as if THEY know. Relgion never knows. Its a group of people who come together to worship something we believe to be true. We have storys, and you can call them false if you want, and as im sure you will, but we believe. thats why we have a word: faith.

faith |fāθ|

noun

1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one's faith in politicians.

2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

• a system of religious belief : the Christian faith.

• a strongly held belief or theory : the faith that life will expand until it fills the universe.

look at the bold. i think youll find the word "belief" there.

3.I agree a myth could be true, and the search for the truth is a good and noble thing. However there is absolutely no way anyone who is seriously looking at the question can use a book that was written thousands of years ago and translated several times as a source of reliable information."

So obviously: the bible would NEVER know something before science right?

Isaiah 40:22

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle even suggested that the earth might be a sphere in his book, On the Heavens.

^^please explain.

the point is people dont look at it with thoughts of science, but the bible still is accurate with many things scientifically.

4.I am refering to the creation of the universe. Religions have contradictory views on that and thus cannot all be right. When you add the fact that logic points to religion as being created to 1. explain the universe around us and 2. manipulate and control people, it makes it even more likely that they are all bogus. my personal belief is based upon logical reason but I have no solid proof that they all are bogus just that all but 1 have to be. Please dont confuse disbelief in religion as disbelief in god they are not the same thing. I never said that religions had to be destroyed dotn knwo where that came from, but I have to admit i'm not a fan of beets either.

I never said they were all right, you jsut said they were all wrong. well science is used for #1, and and honestly, i dont believe relgions goals is for #2. The LAW does the same thing that the 10 commandments do. Please add examples for #2.

5.Its not that im unhappy with religions just as i said before only 1 can be right. I do not think someone is stupid for believing in a religion, it is a personal thing. I believe people should come to their religious beliefs after thinking about it. Most people have their beliefs because of their upbringing. Very unlikely someone will grow up Christian in Pakistan or Buddhist in Salt Lake city. If your parents are Hindu chances are you will be Hindu etc... Please dont be confused I have stated it several times before but i will state it again I dont KNOW if god exists but I do not BELIEVE any religion is correct. This some people take for Atheism but it isnt, Atheism is the disbelief in god.

yes, only one can be right. you just say they were ALL wrong. i argue with that. and your "i do not thing some is stupid for believe in a religion" comment is interesting. so its not stupid, just arrogant? you said relgion calls for KNOWING things, but its not stupid. however, im arrogant, even though its not stupid to believe. again: you make me look like an idiot, then say its not stupid so you dont seem bad. hmmm...

heres the thing: many people DO think about it. you just assume that many people who believe are idiots for continuing their faith. if they havent converted to science, that doesn't mean they have blind faith!!! and yes your right - many people DO have beliefs because of their upbringing. but if they didnt want to give money to the church, or they didnt want to get up every week (or almost every week), then you think they would have opted for the easy way out. being christian means giving up stuff. time, money...atheism does nothing of that. i think many who were brought up non-religious stay that way because its easier. weve all spent time at home, hanging out, but i bet there are MANY MANY people in this world whove never been inside a church, and who have never even tried it. think about that. and quag - i know what atheism is. dont worry. my point is that you say somehting, but do something different. hmmmm...

Edited April 14, 2011 by peace*out

[peace*out]

I think it's a bit ignorant to claim you know everything. Regardless if it's true, we've created an alternate version of history. Even if it's completely random, it just comes into account, and we don't know everything. Since others have come to respect that belief, we must respect, but we don't need to believe in it.

On a side note: I seriously think religion was thought of over a couple of primitive guys taking some Shrooms. Stern face serious.

#1:

Ignorant i understnand. arrogant...I cannot claim to know the happenings of the universe, but i believe. stongly believe.

and please - I dont dis atheism, which WAS probably made out of some guys laziness to go to church. or some kid not wanting to go to sunday school. "but MOMMYYYYY!!!! I dont believe in god...cannai jus' stay home and play pacman??? PWEASE!!!!!"

[Guest]

As long as you don't do anything stupid, anybody is entitled to their own opinion. Although, I do not believe atheism was made by not going to church. Although it may have lead to the discovery of it. The first atheist (I'm shooting for agnostic now) discovered it by suddenly thinking out of the box, he may have not gone to church and then started thinking, and always... shrooms.

By the way I'm reading a funny book called Lamb (along with 3 other books) which talks about Jesus' childhood friend, Biff (Levi) who tells us about the first 30 years of Jesus' life. Be warned! It's fictional and it may offend you.

[Quag]

Points 1+2 combined.

Peace*out: Hubris means arrogance. Please reread my post. I say it is arrogoant to claim to KNOW not to believe BELIEVE the two are not the same thing. You claim to believe and have faith, that is not arrogance it is belief. If you start to claim you KNOW and have PROOF, well then yes i am sorry you can say I am calling you arrogant because well frankly you are being arrogant.

Seems all your points center around the confusion of the 2 words. I make a difference between belief/faith and knowledge. If you think I am attacking the religious people more than the athiests please point out the where someone has claimed to KNOW that god does not exist. The few times i have seen anything close to that on this board I have made comments, just they are far far fewer than the other way around.

3: what does that excerpt have to do with the world being a sphere? More importantly what does that have to do with proving god? The bible talks of jesus, he existed no debate on that one, but that doesnt mean he is the son of god. You believe that, that is fine but just because the bible says he existed and we know he did does not lead to the proof that he is divine. Heinrich Schliemann used the Iliad and the Odyssey to find Troy that does not mean that the greek gods are real either. Please note when I say it does not mean something exists it is also implicit that the reverse is true as well. Ie it does not mean that it doesnt exist.

4. dont understand your point sorry.

5. I never claimed to know all religions are bogus I said i tend to believe thay all are (not same thing as believing god doesnt exist) I have thought about it and that is my conclusion. You have obviously thought about it and came to a different conclusion. the definition of atheism was added for ADParker as he seems to think I'm an athiest, which isnt true. Ill finish by pointing that you brought up the word idiot not me. I only used Hubris in the case of people who claim to know (on either side of the debate if you would reread the post) not those who believe. If you take this as an insult well ther eis nothing I can do.

[Guest]

Quag, there is an actual discussion over whether Jesus existed or not. I believe he did, but there is a chance that from some point on in the bible, everything before was completely made up rather than partially true (like the existence of Jesus). Yet it does thoroughly describe the romans and such but... who knows?

[tiger_lily111]

Any Christians in the den?

Yes.

[Guest]

You misunderstand me I do not disbelieve in the existence of god(s)

CRAP!

I was hoping that you wouldn't go down this quite frankly ridiculous path.

No, I do not misunderstand you. "Disbelief" includes everything that is not belief. Belief is to Disbelief as P is to not-P. (Although as I explained earlier; some choose to use the word more narrowly as if it only means to-believe-not, to believe that the belief in question is false.)

a·the·ism   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled

[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA

You are already wasting your time. Dictionaries provide Usage, accepted definitions, but do not themselves Define. This is a subtle but significant distinction, it allows for the fact that definitions change, by 'admitting' that the definitions given are not fixed or the ultimate truth of the matter.

*Related aside: Did you know that the earliest Webster Dictionaries defined "Witch" as "worshipper of Satan"? Even though the Wiccans of the day (as to this day as well) neither worship or particularly believe in Satan at all?

–noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I actually don't accept this as correct on a personal level, as I consider the first to be something beyond, added onto, mere atheism. But as that doesn't have an accepted term, I tend to let that slide. (some have taken up "Anti-theism" but to me that reads like "being opposed to the belief in gods" and not "belief that gods don't exist", like that don't like that people believe in gods, whether it is true or not.)

But besides that, I accept that set of definitions in general.

Note that the second CAN NOT mean "disbelief" in the narrow fashion that you are clearly defining it. As that would render the second definition the same as the first, making it a tautological waste of space.

Either you disagree with this definition of atheism or you misunderstand my point of view.

Neither, read above,

It is rather, I expect, that you misunderstand that definition set.

I do not dibelieve in god, I just dont know.

If you don't believe in god, then you disbelieve. Which does not mean that you believe that god does not exist, that is another matter.

Just as belief and knowledge are two differing matters. And that is why I can likewise say that:

I do disbelieve in [the existence of] god, and I just don't know.

Because as my earlier set of definitions showed; Belief and knowledge (by which I should stress i really mean certainty; the personal conviction that one knows - which does not depend on one being correct) being two different fields, allows for any combination of the two:

1. Belief and knowledge ("I know God exists!")

2. Belief and lack of knowledge ("I believe Allah exists, but don't know for sure.")

3. Disbelief and lack of knowledge ("I don't believe in YHWH, but don't know for sure - he might" - note that 'I' may of may not actively believe that he is not real.)

4. Disbelief and knowledge ("I know that Ganesha is not real!")

That is Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is lack of knowledge (certainty.) Which is why it stems from the Greek word for "knowledge": Gnosis.

Of course the word "Agnosticism" has also been taken up as a label for various 'doctrines' and positions, all of which include actual agnosticism within their 'tenets.'

When I say I neither believe nor disbelieve it is just my way of saying I dont know.

Actually it says more than that.

As it excludes "I believe, but don't know" as well as "I don't believe [in gods], I know [they aren't real]."

What I believe is that the belief or disbelief in god is irrelevant.

Not if this god exists and interacts in a manner in which belief makes a difference.

The most obvious example is the (silly) doctrine that if you don't believe then you will burn!

And I think you are wrong anyway, because clearly believing or disbelieving has a profound effect, makes a huge difference, in how some people lead their lives. How they vote, what they value (as moral etc.) and what agenda they will push for or against (and how hard)... And from those beliefs; those actions can (and do) cause significant changes to how our lives are likely to proceed. What if the Dominionists won in your country and made it a theocracy for example.

In short; beliefs can be far from irrelevant, as they can lead to significant effects, due to how people act upon them (our beliefs inform our actions,) And this has nothing to do with their truth-value (whether those beliefs are true or false.)

I do however Disbelieve in the christian view of god, that doesnt make me atheist just non christian.

Correct, only not believing in ANY gods makes you an atheist. Because atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods.

Do you believe in any gods?

Though I must admit most christians confuse the two and are convinced that if you do not believe in their version of god you are an atheist, or at least the ones that I know. Ie. my in-laws.

True. That is a confused mindset in which one gets so fixated on their cherished (and indoctrinated) doctrine that can't see anything beyond that false dilemma.

But look (again this is definitionally, not labelling) it is really really simple (I will even use computer coding stylse to make it even clearer - I hope):

Two Questions:

1. Do you believe in any gods? Yes/No.

---If "Yes"

----------"You are a theist."

---Else

----------"You are an atheist."

2. Do you know if gods exist or not? Yes/No

---If "Yes"

----------"You are a Gnostic."

---Else

----------"You are an agnostic."

[Guest]

So obviously: the bible would NEVER know something before science right?

Wrong.

If you want to go this route, you have to show something clearly described in the bible that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE that anyone could have known by natural human means at that time.

Isaiah 40:22

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,

Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

Yawn.

There's your "circle [not sphere or ball] of the earth", your "heavens like a curtain" "like a tent"

Is that what was actually intended in the text? Doesn't matter; the fact is that is doesn't come close to clearly saying what you want to believe it says. In fact it is ONLY from you pre-existing understanding of the shape of the earth etc. (from science) that you can draw that conclusion.

The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 BC.

As I understand it, the scholarship only applies to the chapters prior to the one quoted. That one (and the following, from 40-55) where written a century or more after that.

This is at least 300 years before Aristotle even suggested that the earth might be a sphere in his book, On the Heavens.

Okay even if it was the case that this text referred to a spherical earth:

Having read the complete works of Plato, Aristotle's teacher; I can tell you that he too refers to the Earth as a sphere. Not as a claim or argument, but just as an accepted well known fact, in much the same way as we talk about such things that are already well known. He talks about travelling deep down into the centre of the Earth in one of his analogies for instance. And he even tried to estimate its circumference.

Earlier still Pythagoras [570–495 BCE] believed it was a sphere as well.

It is not much of a stretch that others thought the same earlier still (as they had much the same tools at their disposal - no fancy telescopes were required etc.) So even if you could prove that the bible describes a spherical earth in early texts (which you haven't,) all that would mean is that someone figured that out a little earlier than we thought. It is not like there is no non-mystical, non-divine way to figure that out.

^^please explain.

There's nothing to explain. Once again an apologist has to desperately interpret a vague text, to claim that it says more than it does, in order to claim some tie to reality.

the point is people dont look at it with thoughts of science, but the bible still is accurate with many things scientifically.

But if it was as claimed it would have to be accurate and NEVER inaccurate, right?

So how does this go for a cure to leprosy then:

Leviticus 14:

49.And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop:

50. And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water:

51. And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and the scarlet, and the living bird, and dip them in the blood of the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the house seven times:

52. And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird, and with the running water, and with the living bird, and with the cedar wood, and with the hyssop, and with the scarlet:

53. But he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house: and it shall be clean.

[Guest]

[To question "Any Christians in the den?"]

Yes.

Cool. Can you actually provide and argue for any reason to believe as you do? Any reason why anybody should be a Christian as you are?

Or more simply: What are your beliefs, and why?

[Quag]

peace*out please not I am disagreeing with a NON CHRISTAIN

No, I do not misunderstand you. "Disbelief" includes everything that is not belief. Belief is to Disbelief as P is to not-P.

I refute this compeltely. I disbelive in the non existence of god. Does that make me an agnostic-athiest-thiest? of course not.

Athiest: believes god does not exist.

Thiest: believes in some sort of god.

Agnostic: admits they dont know..

You are already wasting your time. Dictionaries provide Usage, accepted definitions, but do not themselves Define. This is a subtle but significant distinction, it allows for the fact that definitions change, by 'admitting' that the definitions given are not fixed or the ultimate truth of the matter

yes definitions change over time but so far the definition of atheism and agnostic have not changed. Agnoticiic was a term created by Thomas Henry Huxley who was as much against atheism as he was theism. The definition may change ovver time but so far it hasnt changed even if you want it to.

*Related aside: Did you know that the earliest Webster Dictionaries defined "Witch" as "worshipper of Satan"? Even though the Wiccans of the day (as to this day as well) neither worship or particularly believe in Satan at all?

Did you know the wiccan religion started in the 20th century? yup the term witch is older than the wiccan religion. and that many wiccans take offence at the term witch?

I actually don't accept this as correct on a personal level, as I consider the first to be something beyond, added onto, mere atheism. But as that doesn't have an accepted term, I tend to let that slide. (some have taken up "Anti-theism" but to me that reads like "being opposed to the belief in gods" and not "belief that gods don't exist", like that don't like that people believe in gods, whether it is true or not.)

But besides that, I accept that set of definitions in general.

Note that the second CAN NOT mean "disbelief" in the narrow fashion that you are clearly defining it. As that would render the second definition the same as the first, making it a tautological waste of space.

Ok you dont accept the generally accepted terms used in the english language. you sir a a maverick

seriously it doesnt matter if you dont like the definition af atheism or theism or agnosticism they are what they are you can try to change it but the effort does not make it so. In fact the chances of changing the definiton are as likely as the definition of iron changing.

[Quag]

Neither, read above,

It is rather, I expect, that you misunderstand that definition set.

Nope i understand it completely seems you just dont or wont accept the definitions.

If you don't believe in god, then you disbelieve. Which does not mean that you believe that god does not exist, that is another matter.

Just as belief and knowledge are two differing matters. And that is why I can likewise say that:

I do disbelieve in [the existence of] god, and I just don't know.

Because as my earlier set of definitions showed; Belief and knowledge (by which I should stress i really mean certainty; the personal conviction that one knows - which does not depend on one being correct) being two different fields, allows for any combination of the two:

1. Belief and knowledge ("I know God exists!")

2. Belief and lack of knowledge ("I believe Allah exists, but don't know for sure.")

3. Disbelief and lack of knowledge ("I don't believe in YHWH, but don't know for sure - he might" - note that 'I' may of may not actively believe that he is not real.)

4. Disbelief and knowledge ("I know that Ganesha is not real!")

I accept this part of your statement.

Agnosticism is lack of knowledge (certainty.) Which is why it stems from the Greek word for "knowledge": Gnosis.

Of course the word "Agnosticism" has also been taken up as a label for various 'doctrines' and positions, all of which include actual agnosticism within their 'tenets.'

again true

Actually it says more than that.

As it excludes "I believe, but don't know" as well as "I don't believe [in gods], I know [they aren't real]."

ok again just proving my point.

Not if this god exists and interacts in a manner in which belief makes a difference.

The most obvious example is the (silly) doctrine that if you don't believe then you will burn!

And I think you are wrong anyway, because clearly believing or disbelieving has a profound effect, makes a huge difference, in how some people lead their lives. How they vote, what they value (as moral etc.) and what agenda they will push for or against (and how hard)... And from those beliefs; those actions can (and do) cause significant changes to how our lives are likely to proceed. What if the Dominionists won in your country and made it a theocracy for example.

In short; beliefs can be far from irrelevant, as they can lead to significant effects, due to how people act upon them (our beliefs inform our actions,) And this has nothing to do with their truth-value (whether those beliefs are true or false.)

It is a simple way of stating my position I admit. let me clarify. If there is a god I do not believe that you have to believe in him/her/it/them whatever to go to heaven/nirvanah or whatever. If there is no god believing or not believing will not affect the outcome of an afterlife or lack thereof. I also do not believe morals come from religion. They often teach morals but are not the gatekeepers of them. That is what I meant by saying gods existence or non existence is irrelevant. The belief or non belief in gods existence obvioulsy has a profound effect on our world.

Correct, only not believing in ANY gods makes you an atheist. Because atheism is the lack of a belief in any gods.

Do you believe in any gods?

no atheism is the belief that gods do not exist.

True. That is a confused mindset in which one gets so fixated on their cherished (and indoctrinated) doctrine that can't see anything beyond that false dilemma.

But look (again this is definitionally, not labelling) it is really really simple (I will even use computer coding stylse to make it even clearer - I hope):

Two Questions:

1. Do you believe in any gods? Yes/No.

---If "Yes"

----------"You are a theist."

---Else

----------"You are an atheist."

2. Do you know if gods exist or not? Yes/No

---If "Yes"

----------"You are a Gnostic."

---Else

----------"You are an agnostic."

I disagree. here is mine.

1 do you believe god exists?

if yes then you are a theist if no than goto 2

2 do you believe god does not exist

if yes you are an atheist if not goto3

3. Do believe god may or may not exist if yes you are an agnostic. if no go back to question 1

repeat untill you say yes somewhere.

Now i admit an agnostic can tend towards atheism or theism or a theist or an atheist can tend towads agnosticism but the tend doesnt make you join the other camp. think spectum of a rainbow the exact point at which red turns orange is fuzzy and hard to define but if your in the middle of the red ther eis no doubt.

[Quag]

Quag, there is an actual discussion over whether Jesus existed or not. I believe he did, but there is a chance that from some point on in the bible, everything before was completely made up rather than partially true (like the existence of Jesus). Yet it does thoroughly describe the romans and such but... who knows?

The only people I could find who refute the existence of jesus seem to be fanatical atheists. sorry if I dont lend any credence to fanatics.

[Guest]

Just giving you a view to every window. Yet when a theory comes up and becomes acceptable, we have to accept it too. The social laws of society

[peace*out]

I think im going to stop playing Christian for now, but maybe ill start if this thread starts to lull again...Plus it was hard. In a place where reason is most prominent and is used in discussion (as it should be) it was hard for me, as a non-believer to look for evidence and not laugh...not because of the faith, but because the sites are just utter bull.

EX: http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

yay quag!!! haha, it was just my noticing something. and I may go back and look thorugh 570 posts for someone who says 100% god is FALSE (im SURE its here ), but im too lazy right now.

Oh, and i believe 100% jesus was real. not as the son of god, but as a faithful jew who, through his teachings of his faith, because idolized and famous through many many rumors (that appeared in the bible - taking advantage of his status? )

[Guest]

I refute this compeltely.

Then you are in error

I disbelive in the non existence of god. Does that make me an agnostic-athiest-thiest? of course not.

Correct. You are an agnostic atheist because you neither have a belief in any gods (atheist) nor think you know that gods don't exist (agnostic.)

Your lack of a belief that there are no gods is an extra. Which is why I am quite comfortable with you LABELLING yourself as an agnostic, even though you are both agnostic and atheistic. As that appears to say more about your point of view than your atheism. In other words that your agnosticism is a more central aspect of your nature than your atheism.

To be an theist you would have not not merely disbelieve (lack a belief) in the non-existence of gods, you would have to actually believe that at least one of them does exist.

In fact what you just did was argue that my provided definition of "disbelieve" is the correct one! That disbelief DOES NOT just mean "Believe that X is false. If that were the case then your above statement would mean "I believe that the non-existence of gods is false" which of course means "I believe gods do exist"; that you are a theist.

It would of not make you both an atheist and a theist! Anyone claiming anything like that would simply be confused, or lying.

Athiest: believes god does not exist.

FALSE FALSE FALSE.

Try claiming that nonsense of any atheism-dominant forum, and see how much flack you receive! Ouch!

Atheist: does not have a belief in any gods. That's it.

Some atheists go further and actually believe they don't exist. Many who choose to use the label "atheist" probably do so, but it is the lack of a belief in any gods which makes them definitionally an atheist, not this belief in something else.

In my case for example; I don't have any god beliefs, so I am an atheist. I happen to be of the current opinion that none exist, but my real point of position, where I tend to argue from, is is that I see absolutely no reason for anyone to think that they do exist. This leads to the opinion that no one should believe in any gods. Belief that gods don't exist doesn't even come into it. Not believing doesn't have to include believing the opposite, it can also simply lead to not thinking about it much at all.

Thiest: believes in some sort of god.

As long as one believes in what can commonly be recognised as fitting the label "god" then they are a theist

Agnostic: admits they dont know..

Right. And Gnostics think that they do know.

Note (as said already) how A-Theism deals with what one believes, while A-Gnosticism deals with what one thinks they know. These two spectrum can and must overlap.

Or can you not see that one can be (must be) an agnostic; "admits they don't know" if gods exist, AND also either happen to believe that one or more of them do anyway, or doesn't have such a belief - either actively believing they don't exist, or just lacking such a belief?

yes definitions change over time but so far the definition of atheism and agnostic have not changed. Agnoticiic was a term created by Thomas Henry Huxley who was as much against atheism as he was theism. The definition may change ovver time but so far it hasnt changed even if you want it to.

Actually both have changed in some regards.

Agnosticism (yes I am familiar with that original coining) was a reaction to the Gnostics who claimed to know that God existed, as well as a bunch of mystical stuff, and was initially a rather specific point of view. Huxley also wanted to distance himself from certain atheists of his day by coining a new label - kind of reminds me of the label "Brights", and how some use "Secular humanism", "Free-thinkers".... It has since become more accepted in it's more generalised form, based on the terms from which the word is formed: A (without) gnostic (Greek: gnosis = knowledge.) It is in fact not all that uncommon to hear someone say that "I am agnostic on that issue" even when that issue has nothing to do with religions of gods whatsoever.

As a label people tend to use it as a word for uncertainty (that one has no idea/opinion, and/or believes the question is beyond any understanding) but it is actually more properly linked to certainty (thinking one has knowledge) and the lack thereof, than the lack of any opinion whatsoever. This I think is due to a confused common usage in which people tend to equate "I don't know" with a denial of having any opinion. I don't "know" if the sun will come up tomorrow, but you bet your arse I have an opinion!

Atheism was coined differently. There was no pre-existing term "Theism/theist", that term was Back-formed later. Instead the term Atheos was coined by the Romans as a slur on the early Greek Christians. Who in turn denied this and shifted the label onto those "other Greeks" who didn't believe in any gods at all! The term is often translated as "Godless" and reads as "without-gods", which may imply an active belief that gods don't exist. But this is only if one doesn't understand Greek, or that the language differs in that it often doesn't differentiate between "belief in X" and "X' in it's terminology. I don't understand Greek myself, but have spoken to a few who do (being Greeks who live in Greece) and that is what they tell me; Atheos carries the same meaning over there as "Atheist" does for most active on-line-community atheists apply it: Without a belief in any gods.

Did you know the wiccan religion started in the 20th century? yup the term witch is older than the wiccan religion. and that many wiccans take offence at the term witch?

Some do, some don't, some openly embrace that label as well. Wicca is a revitalisation (some may argue bastardisation, at least in some cases) of earlier Earth and Nature centred religions, as they had drifted into obscurity, which included those who were known as witches. The point is that none of them worshipped Satan, as the dictionary 'definition' stated.

Ok you dont accept the generally accepted terms used in the english language. you sir a a maverick

Hard to be a maverick when practically everyone who calls themselves an atheist, that I have ever encountered, agrees with me. Although if it makes you feel better; your position does side well with most Christian apologists (Christians who actively argue for their position) I have come across. Funny that. But not really; for them it serves a purpose - one of being seen as a far easier STRAW MAN to argue against. Easier to assume and rail against atheists, if one assumes that Atheist means one who claims there is no God, or as some of them put it "Deny the existence of God" (note that it is capital-G God, not "a god" or "any gods" - note the bias and blinkered way of thinking), rather than the fact that we simply don't believe their claims that it does. They of course are trying to force a burden of proof onto us. Accepting that many aren't doing this maliciously, they have simply been indoctrinated to assume this fallacious definition, in the face of ANY attempt to correct the error. By the way; I FREAKIN' HATE IT when people insist that they can presume to tell ME what it is that I believe!

seriously it doesnt matter if you dont like the definition af atheism or theism or agnosticism they are what they are you can try to change it but the effort does not make it so. In fact the chances of changing the definiton are as likely as the definition of iron changing.

Try spending some time on forums like Rational Scepticism (which is basically the reformed forum that rose from the ashes of the now defunct RichardDawkins.net forum) and looking up the definitions of others online, and you will find that the definitions as I gave it are by now pretty standard. Look up the definitions given by religious apologetics sources as well; and note the disconnect!

That definition set I posted before? I coined that all myself, from my own understandings of how the online communities I experienced tended to use the terms, and the positions people do and can hold. And only later looked them up, and was somewhat surprised that terms like "Agnostic-athiest" etc. were far from new or uncommon. It appears that from the same data set (evidence of what people say and argue) many many people come up with much the same definitions and terms! Kind of suggests that there is somethingto it, doesn't it?

[Guest]

It is a simple way of stating my position I admit. let me clarify. If there is a god I do not believe that you have to believe in him/her/it/them whatever to go to heaven/nirvanah or whatever.

That depends entirely on the nature of the god doesn't it? In some doctrines belief is the primary, if not only, criteria that determines if one goes to the Happy Place or not. I don't believe it either, but that is just because I see no reason to think that any of those gods are real to begin with.

If you are saying that you DO believe that "If there is a god then it is not necessary to believe in him/her/it/them whatever to go to heaven/nirvanah or whatever" then on what possible grounds can you have possibly come to that conclusion?!

If there is no god believing or not believing will not affect the outcome of an afterlife or lack thereof.

Sure, but as one of the usual rebuttals of Pascal's Wager goes; it DOES (or at least can) have a profound impact on the one life we know is real!

I also do not believe morals come from religion.

Me either. Not even if the claimed god(s) do in fact exist. This is off topic though.

They often teach morals but are not the gatekeepers of them.

In my view they often teach poorly formed moral codes. Often tend to stifle ethical growth to moral maturity, rather than what they claim it does. Train people to fail to develop healthy mature ethical values.

That is what I meant by saying gods existence or non existence is irrelevant. The belief or non belief in gods existence obvioulsy has a profound effect on our world.

That's fine. I happen to enjoy extending upon such subjects when they are brought up.

no atheism is the belief that gods do not exist.

Bollocks.

But you remain fixed in the theist (Christian actually) ingrained Straw Man assertion, if that is what you prefer.

Just realise that many of the Self-labelled atheists you come across may not be atheists by your personal chosen definition.

I disagree. here is mine.

1 do you believe god exists?

if yes then you are a theist if no than goto 2

2 do you believe god does not exist

if yes you are an atheist if not goto3

3. Do believe god may or may not exist if yes you are an agnostic. if no go back to question 1

repeat untill you say yes somewhere.

You are free to believe that agnosticism is a third option if that is what pleases you, whatever.

Just understand that a whole lot of people will be meaning quite different things when using the exact same words you are.

Now i admit an agnostic can tend towards atheism or theism or a theist or an atheist can tend towads agnosticism but the tend doesnt make you join the other camp. think spectum of a rainbow the exact point at which red turns orange is fuzzy and hard to define but if your in the middle of the red ther eis no doubt.

That means nothing to me, as I don't accept your assumption that agnosticism is a third category in the theist-atheist spectrum. That agnosticism is a what one can "tend to." On the contrary; what one can tend to (or not) is gnosticism (conviction/certainty.) But that of course would be toward Gnostic-Atheism or Gnostic-theism.

But I tire of these semantic games.

[Guest]

Oh, and i believe 100% jesus was real. not as the son of god, but as a faithful jew who, through his teachings of his faith, because idolized and famous through many many rumors (that appeared in the bible - taking advantage of his status? )

100% wow! I couldn't even come close to that, not on the scant evidence I am aware of!

I happen to think that there is probably enough circumstantial evidence for it to reasonable to provisionally accept that the Jesus character was based to some degree on an actual person. Of course that doesn't say a great deal; the Kramer character on the TV show Seinfeld was based on an actual person as well, a person who did hardly any of the things that were on the show.

[Quag]

WOW this is the best discussion in this christianit thread and its between 2 non christians

Ok i was gonna go through this line by line but well im tired and was messing up the quotes, but while looking things up I came across a better definiton of what I belive

Pragmatic agnosticism

The view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.

Yup gotta say that sums up my beliefs the best so far. Although I believe the question is academic I find it very interesting none the less.

Oh, and i believe 100% jesus was real. not as the son of god, but as a faithful jew who, through his teachings of his faith, because idolized and famous through many many rumors (that appeared in the bible - taking advantage of his status? )

100% wow! I couldn't even come close to that, not on the scant evidence I am aware of!

I happen to think that there is probably enough circumstantial evidence for it to reasonable to provisionally accept that the Jesus character was based to some degree on an actual person. Of course that doesn't say a great deal; the Kramer character on the TV show Seinfeld was based on an actual person as well, a person who did hardly any of the things that were on the show.

Personal opinion is that we can be as sure of jesus existence as most anyone elses back then. Sure there is more proof that Julius Ceaser lived but he led Rome and also wrote a lot himslef. The way I look at it is the bible is like most historical fiction. The general lines of what happened are correct, it is the details that do not exactly reflect what happened. things like to supposed miracles etc. Also all the statements while possible reflecting what he meant to say, cannot be 100% accurate, lets face it they were written after his death and not by him (mind you if he managed to write them himself after his death that would be a miracle). forgive me im tired and need sleep

[Guest]

The bible is like a history textbook... a US history text book They never tell you the truth

[Aaryan]

I always wondered... heaven (hell?) must have one problem... overcrowding that makes me question it.

btw this post might be off topic but I just read this topic, so I just posted something.